Zodiac Speaking Q&A

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
You're listening to Zodiac Speaking, broughtto you by Abject Entertainment. Be sure
to check out some of the othergreat true crime podcasts from this network,
including The Murder in My Family,Missing Person's, dna I d Scene of
the Crime, Beyond, Bizarre,True Crime, Citizen Detective, and Campus

(00:20):
Killings. All of these podcasts areavailable for you to binge on right now.
Wherever you listen to podcasts, subscribewhere you're listening to this podcast so
you don't miss an episode. Thisis a Zodiac Speaking. We'll go us

(01:00):
series of questions that have been sentinto the podcast Mike, and the first
series of questions are from Ed Rice, predominantly about late Herman Road. But
his first question he says, whatis known about Daniel Williams personally and is
he still alive? What did hedo after etc. Well, I haven't

(01:25):
got access to ancestry records on theinternet, so maybe you will know.
But the current status from what Ibelieve is Daniel Williams is still alive.
He's aged seventy seven and he's livingin Santa Cruz. Now you did a
little bit of checking on him,so maybe you know a little bit more.

(01:46):
Yeah, I did identify someone thatI believe is the rate Daniel Williams.
It's the common name. So justlooking back and finding the rate Daniel
Williams is tough because a lot ofthe records you can use to go back
and find him back that far toverify he lived at that address. But
I found the person that I'm confidentas him, and I reached out to

(02:07):
him to comment on the situation,what happened to him and it. You
know, he didn't reply, soit sounds like he's not interested in talking
about it for his reasons, whateverthey may be. But looking back at
it, I said, okay,well this was a serious crime. This
wasn't something where it's a you know, someone just sent him a threatening letter.

(02:29):
They tried to kill this guy,So to me, that was a
very serious crime. I did reachout to my friend Paul Holes, who
worked in that county, and hewent back and he did have some notes
on the case that he shared withme. Nothing earth shattering that would,
you know, we can talk about, but you know, he did seem

(02:50):
like it was a serious crime.Now I'd have to reach back out at
this point to the county and seewhat they've got left as far as any
record on the matter, A lotof that stuff gets purged after so many
years, But being that this wasan attempted murder, it may not have
so there might be some success inreaching out to them to see if they

(03:12):
do have any police report, ifthey have the letters. I have to
do a little bit more digging withthat, you know, along those lines,
to give you a comparison where weknow Daniel Williams was definitely an attempted
murder victim. We look at someonelike Edzelmina who just got a threatening letter.
No one tried to poison him.I reached out to the Nevado Police

(03:35):
Department in his case, and everythingfrom back then was shredded because of the
you couldn't prosecute anyone so after solong that the records were shredded. So
it seems like we're never going tosee a copy of any of the threatening
letters in his case, which is, you know, upset me a little
bit. I was hoping to seethis, But because there was no actual
attempted murder on him, you know, that stuff got shredded. But we

(03:59):
might have a little bit of luckdigging into what's available with Daniel Williams.
So I'm going to keep that upand see if anything can come from it.
And to be clear, he isstill living in Santa Cruz And did
he change professions and stop being aschool teacher. Those are other things I
don't know for sure because he wouldn'treply. So based on some of the
details that I did find, Itend to believe he is no longer a

(04:21):
school teacher at this age. Hemay be totally retired, but from what
I could gather, he don't thinkhe remained a school teacher for his entire
career. But again, unless hecame forward and talk to us and gave
us some details, I don't knowthat we would know that for sure.
Yeah, but back then, hewas twenty four when he was targeted,
so he would be seventy seven today, So I would hope he'd be retired

(04:45):
at that age, but I wouldthink I would think he is. Now.
To begin the series of questions onLake Herman Road, ed Rice asks,
did Pierre be do ever complete awitness statement? Why wasn't his time
apparently not determined as part of thetimeline with Lake Herman Road. This is

(05:06):
a red flag to me about hisstatements later. My answer to that would
be I haven't seen any reports fromPierre Bidoux regarding his timeline at Lake Herman
Road, But if his statements arecorrect that he literally dropped off the drugs
he sees that night at Benicia pD and then returned to the Lake Herman

(05:27):
Road turnout, then he must havepassed the turnout originally shortly after the passing
of Connelly and Gassa, which iswhy he never saw the Faraday rambler.
If his recollections are accurate, theonly way he could fail to spot the
rambler is if it was a parkedon the west bank. But just because
he failed to spot the rambler onthe west Bank doesn't mean Robert Connolly failed

(05:48):
to spot it. Bidu would havebeen preoccupied by his drugs bust, so
in summation, I don't know whetherhe produced any police report on his timeline
that night. Maybe because he sawnothing in the turn out, he didn't
produce one, But who knows.Have you got any information on that?

(06:10):
Yeah, I don't remember. It'sbeen a while since I looked at those
reports, but I don't remember aspecific report from Pierre bdo doesn't mean he
didn't do one but I haven't seenone, and you obviously haven't either.
I always, you know, wheneverI talk to someone on a forum post,
for example, and they're arguing aboutsomething said in the two thousand and

(06:30):
seven Zodiac documentary that they didn't sayway back in nineteen sixty nine on a
police report, I prefer to goby those police reports. It's the most
accurate. They take the details whenit's fresh in their minds. We see
later on fifty years later, thingschange, stories change, you know,
So I think it's clear that yougo by the police reports that were documented

(06:54):
right after the crimes happened. Andagain, Pierre Bdo may have filled one,
filled one out. We don't seeit, but it's possibly he did.
And you know, based on hisrecollections in that documentary he mentioned not
remembering the car there. Now.At the time, as you mentioned,
they had just done this big drugbust, so they might have been pumped

(07:15):
up over that. They're riding by, they're talking about the bus they just
made, maybe talking and just totallymissed the car there, so or it
could have just been out of viewfrom the angle they were at, and
that coupled with the talking, youknow, he just may have missed it,
So unfortunately, we just don't know. With that. Well, that's

(07:35):
what have you just answered? Thatencompasses the next question. It said,
are their police reports available about thedrugs bust and the timing involved documented there
at all? Again, I've seenno reports on the drugs bust at the
cottage, and I'm not aware thatanybody else has two. And I think
that's the same with you, isn'tit. Yeah, it's it's pretty much
the same thing. You know.I haven't seen a specific mention of that.

(07:59):
Again, doesn't mean it didn't happen. There's no reason to doubt him.
That seems like something that could verywell have happened. One thing that
sort of gets overlooked that I alwaysthought it was interesting, which we also
haven't seen a report on, wasthis missing fisherman that NTE that supposedly went
out to Lake Berryessa and got lastAnd that was something that sort of had

(08:20):
the police preoccupied that NTE, Sothat I always found that interesting as well,
And he adds, I believe arrestswere referenced at the cottage. Were
the arrestees in the car with PierreBidoux when he claims to have driven by
the turnout, who was arrested andare they alive? Well, again,

(08:41):
it's a boring answer, but tothe best of my knowledge, I only
know from newspaper reports. I've readin the past that two arrests were made
at the cottage and we're in thepatrol car when it passed the lake home
a road turnout. However, Ihave not seen documentary reports stating this to
be fact. Who these people wereis unknown. Have you got anything to

(09:03):
add on that one as well.Yeah, and we may be able to
go back if we really wanted todig into this and look at the Valeyaho
newspapers, the Venetia area newspapers duringthat week and just see if there was
a blurb or a mention of adrug bust and who was arrested, they
probably would have some of those details. I don't think it, you know,

(09:24):
necessarily fits into the Zodiac case,because if they're arrested for selling drugs,
they and they're in you know,police custody, they certainly could have
killed anyone on Lake Carbon Road.On the other hand, maybe someone could
throw a theory out there that hey, the police were tipped off to this

(09:45):
drug bust by the killer and theywanted them to be preoccupied, so they
sent the police out there to dothis drug bust while they committed. You
know, you could go down thatrabbit hole, but you know, I
don't know that it would really giveus any information to determine who was arrested
that made it, because they couldn'thave done the putings at Lee Crumman Road
if they were on police custody,and the cottage and Lake Herman Road turnout

(10:07):
were only about a quarter of amile apart, weren't they, So it
would be taking a big risk todraw the police close to way you're going
to murder somebody. Yeah. Absolutely. Ed also asks I believe the partner
is now deceased, and I assumehe never made comments on driving by the
turnout in Brackett's convenient Is this correct, just like Fouk and his partner.

(10:31):
Well, Pierre Bidou's partner was SteveR. Mentor, who was shot on
December the fifth, nineteen seventy three, while attempting to arrest a suspect in
Pernicia. He died on December theseventh, nineteen seventy three. I don't
believe his statements regarding that night areknown to the public either. Yeah,
I've never seen a mention in anyreports of him having any detailed accounts.

(10:56):
Right, changing tack a little bit, but still on Lake Herman Road.
I haven't heard anything about the likelihoodof the direction Zodiac approached from at Lake
Herman Road with Richard Grinnell's ushering acrossthe turnout. Theory, would z be
more likely to be coming from theeast or the west to see the rambler
on the west position then have totake a left to get behind it,

(11:22):
I asked, because the west positionis said to be missed by Pierre Bidou,
because it would be harder to seeon the west bank if approaching from
the west going east, a ramblerparked on the west bank would be difficult
to see for somebody traveling from westto east. But if you are specifically

(11:43):
looking for victims in the turnout,it is possible, especially if the ramblers
headlights or tail lights are on.If not, it is still possible.
Because Robert Connley testified on two occasionshe saw the rambler on the west bank.
If we choose to dismiss this eyewitness, then that's down to us.
So what are your thoughts on thespotting of the rambler on the west bank,

(12:07):
and is there a more correct wayto approach the turnout to surprise the
couple within the turnout. Well,obviously, if we look at you know,
Faraday's car where it was found,If we look at that angle and
we look at the last witness,James Owen, that solved the second car,

(12:28):
which we presume the ZODIAX next toit, we can get an idea
from that view. I think youcould have seen the car from either way
where it was found, where itwas ultimately parked when it was found,
I think you would see it fromeither way. Obviously the one direction you
would see it better, but ifyou're out there, especially patrolling for victims,
you're going to be looking close atthose spots anyway. So I think

(12:50):
it could have been seen anyway eitherdirection. And you know, we know
that Owen clearly saw the second carnext to it, so it's it's definitely
different from wed who didn't notice anycars there, So he clearly saw that.
Based on you know, we don'tknow which way Zodiac truly traveled because

(13:11):
there's you know, you've got thatsmall window of when Owens passed by and
when Stella Bortis found the bodies.It's it's a six minute window. In
six minutes, Zodiac could have easily, you know, driven past where he
would have encountered Stella. If shepulls out of her driveway ten seconds later,

(13:37):
they've missed each other. So it'sit's it's easy to see how they
could not pass each other but goin the same direction toward each other.
Or again, if if he's movingthe opposite the same way that Stella Borgis
was moving and he had a shorthead start, she'd never see him anyway,
because he would be moving the samedirection she's moving, but in front

(13:58):
of her. So I think it'shard to say. Now there is mention
of one of the reports, andI don't remember if it's James Owen offhand,
someone that mentioned seeing taillights off inthe distance, if I remember correctly,
So we don't know that if thatwas Zodiac or someone else. But
you know, someone at some pointdid see some tawlights, but no way

(14:20):
to tell if that was Zodiac ornot. So I think the short answer
is you could definitely spot David's carthere in that turnout from either direction,
especially if you were at you know, patrolling looking for someone there, you'd
be really paying attention to it.The only thing I saw in the police

(14:43):
report was that James Owen reported acart passing him traveling to Vallejo by the
Boorges Ranch or Stella madeiros Is Ranchwhat you want to call her. But
that's the only time I heard JamesOwen mentioned a vehicle on the road that
night. And there's another He's Idid a little bit here. If the

(15:03):
rambler was on the east side andDavid Faraday tried to flee, moving the
car a little into the turnout forthe final position zed is fifty fifty,
where he could have come from.But if he indeed approached and was parked
by the rambler, per James Owen, then perhaps an approach from the west

(15:28):
would make more sense, as theeast approach would require turning around behind the
rambler and going by their windows veryquietly, approaching while the kids were occupied.
This is difficult to say from mystandpoint, because the Zodiac lived in
Vallejo and probably went out to killthat night. He probably first approached from
Vallejo, but he could have beentrawling up and down that road between Blue

(15:54):
Rock Springs and Lake Herman Road formany hours searching for victims. And obviously
you don't just turn up on thespur of the moment and find your victims
straight away. So he could verywell have committed his crime at Blue Rock
Springs on December the twentieth, nineteensixty eight, have the opportunity arose.
So I believe he could have beengoing up and down Lake Hermer Road in

(16:18):
between Blue Rock Springs, and sohe could have been approaching from either side
looking for victims specifically. So Ididn't don't think it really matters what direction
he was traveling because he was specificallylooking for victims that night. Yeah,
I'm with you there, I thinkit doesn't matter. As you mentioned,
you know, I wonder if thenight of the Lake Kurman Road murders,

(16:41):
if Zodiac maybe went by Blue RockSprings first. You know, we'll never
know that, but he could havegone there, then went to Lake Urman
Road, maybe on the native BlueRock Springs. Maybe he went down back
down Lake Kurman Road looking for victims. I imagine that spot wasn't too popular
after David and Betty Lue were killedthere, so maybe people avoided that area.

(17:04):
But I wonder if he patrolled thatarea looking for future victims in the
same spot. That would be interestingif he ever killed again at the same
location, which he never wound updoing. But to your point, cruising
different areas looking for these people lookingfor victims is not out of the question,
and it's something that he probably did. And if he was just randomly

(17:27):
searching for lonely retreats for victims,he could easily have committed two attacks at
Blue Rock Springs or two attacks atLake Herman Road. If he may not
have found victims at Blue Rock Springson July the fourth, then he could
easily have killed a second time atLake Herman Road. Nobody probably would have
expected a second attack because at thatpoint they weren't looking for a serial killer,

(17:49):
were they now? Again, onceword got out about these murders,
I think you know whether it wasa serial killer or not. Just knowing
someone was killed there in that spot, even though there wasn't a zodiac yet,
I would imagine that teenagers probably avoidedthe spot on the Kerman Road and
looked for other spots to park,and then when the second attack happened over

(18:14):
at Blue Rock Springs, you knowyou can imagine that that whole area in
general. Probably people started avoiding LoversLane there is, you know, and
maybe that's why Zodiac never struck thereagain, Maybe because he couldn't find victims
there. Maybe people were just notgoing out after dark and parking in these
locations which made it harder for him. I will add that it's difficult for

(18:37):
me to say what David and Bettywere thinking that night, but from my
standpoint, they were absolutely not parkedon the East Bank. I know you'll
probably disagree with that or slightly offit when the Zodiac killer approach. For
this to be the case, wehave to pick and choose which eyewitnesses to
believe. If Connolly said twice theywere on the west bank, then I

(19:02):
accept that until somebody can prove theyweren't. This was their last position known
before the Zodiac arrived, backed upby Bidou not seeing the rambler on the
east bank. If the couple somehowwere on the East bank when Zodiac approached,
which is I think what you morein line with of how the scenario
unfolded, I doubt they would havereacted until Zodiac was literally next to them.

(19:26):
At least two vehicles had passed backand forth that night, so the
couple were likely not spooked until thevehicle actually entered the turnout. Is that
how you see it? Yeah?Can you repeat that? Can you repeat
that? The fact that there werePeggy Yaw and Homer Yaw passed back and
forward and they were in It wasquite a busy night that night, wasn't

(19:49):
it, Bearing in mind that it'ssuch a lonely turnout. And my thoughts
are that they were originally parked onthe east bank, probably moved to the
west bank where less headlights and tothe turnout, but that's the position I
believe they were in when the zodiacapproached, hence Eda asking whether they were
ushered across the turnout. But fromyour standpoint, I think you're firmly of

(20:11):
the opinion that they probably weren't onthe west bank and they were on the
East bank throughout. Is that correct? I would guess that. But again,
you know, the if we lookat the hunters, we look at
the yours. We have to givethem equal consideration based on what they saw,
you know, the yours. Youknow, Peggy your especially, I

(20:33):
think was very specific on her detail. And it could be we're both or
right, you know, when wehave a different the car on a different
location. It could be perhaps anumber of cars came by flashing their lights
at the look, you know,into the car, and Dave and Betty
thought they should move the car toget in a better position so the lights

(20:56):
weren't flashing in their eyes. Wedon't know why they would have moved positions,
but you know to me that themoving of the car is not ultimately
important. For one reason or another, move a car. I don't think
Zodiac said hey, I'm going tomeet I'm gonna hold you at one point,
go move your car in this direction, because they would have fled,
I think so. I don't thinkthat makes sense. I think for whatever

(21:18):
reason the car being moved, ifit was done, it was because Betty
Endeavor aren't not comfortable in the positionthey were originally in. I'll give this
question to you first. It's againalong the same lines. Is the above
from west approach? In other words, the killer approaching from the west next

(21:40):
to the rambler on the east bankfeasible to have been accomplished such that the
kids may not have known he wasthere until he closed his door or it
closed when exiting his vehicle. IfI recall correctly, the seats were found
reclined, and if they were layingdown and making out, I think it's

(22:02):
feasible he could have positioned the carand James Owen could have seen the kids
laying down and Zed just ducks downtoo. Meanwhile, the kids don't even
know he's there. This seems toexplain how James Owen doesn't see either as
he passes the turnout. It onlyrequires Zed to make an effort to not

(22:22):
be seen using the evidence of thereclined seat regarding the kids not being seen.
So but the point he's making,do you think it's possible that he
could have pulled up right next tothem without them even being alerted until he
left his vehicle. Personally, Idon't think they could. I don't think
even if they were laying down theseat, I don't think someone could have

(22:44):
pulled in there without them being alertedout it was dark there. I think
even if they were down, theywould see the headlights pulling in, they
would hear the car. It wasquiet, they'd hear that the tires driving
in. But they may have thoughtit's another couple. You know, it's
a couple's area. Maybe it's justanother couple sitting there, you know,
doing the same thing they're doing,so maybe they didn't pay too much attention

(23:07):
to it. Again, we don'tknow. It is clear that James Owen
did not see any people in oraround the cars. Now could that be
because, you know, could bea few different reasons. The unlikely one
would be that maybe Zodiax already gotthem out of the car and he's got
them outside and he orders them theduck down behind the cars. I don't
buy that theory. The other possibilityis that, as you mentioned, they

(23:32):
both sort of just lay down intheir seats so no one would see him.
Another possibility was that James Owen justdidn't pay that much attention. He
saw the cars, but didn't reallysee people inside. He's going by,
he's not really paying attention, justglances overseas the car, but not much
other details. So I think thoseare the three likely scenarios. I've mentioned

(23:55):
this before in a previous podcast,but I find this a strange one because
if James got a proper look atboth vehicles and saw nobody in or around
them, then logically the kids mayhave been reclined and out of view and
Zodiac briefly ducked down out of sightwithin his vehicle as ed z But James
Owen had a visual on that turnoutfor a minimum of twenty seconds before reaching

(24:17):
it and saw no headlights entering theturnout, So at a bare minimum,
we would have to believe Zodiac wasparked alongside the rambler for at least twenty
seconds without doing anything, and forthe couple to do nothing, not even
rising their seats when he pulled alongside. Had the second vehicle been in the
turnout for one, two, oreven three minutes before Owen arrived, which

(24:40):
is perfectly possible, makes the wholeattack scenario the moment Zodiac pulled alongside even
more unlikely because Owen would have seenbodies in the turnout at that point.
All I will say is Connolly wasconsistent in his statements, but Owen wasn't.
So that's my thoughts on that.I don't understand how we can go

(25:02):
with a Zodiac killer pulling alongside theRamba immediately getting out and starting attacking and
shooting the Ramber and pulling the coupleout and killing them because James Owen never
reported seeing any vehicle or any headlightspulling into that turnout before he got there.
So therefore that vehicle that he sawin the turnout must have been there

(25:22):
for a reasonable amount of time.It could have been a minimum of twenty
seconds. Zodiac could have just enteredthe turnout, but he could have been
there conceivably for minutes. We justdon't know. So I find this really
strange. There's something wrong somewhere,either the eyewitness testimony or the reporting of
how this went down. Yeah,no doubt, which is why I originally

(25:44):
had some suspicion of James Owen inthe first place, because his story just
didn't really seem to make sense.If he goes by, he doesn't see
anyone there, if he's accurate,If Zodiac was in the middle of pulling
them out of the car, surelyhe would have seen people standing there running,
you know, Betty, running away. So we have to assume that

(26:07):
the attack hasn't happened yet at thatpoint. But then the next thing he
says in his next report is twentyseconds up the road he hears the gunshot.
So I find it hard to believethat, you know, he as
soon as he passes by, Zodiacjumps out races over, pulls them out,
gets them out of the car,and the shooting begins within twenty seconds.

(26:30):
Now, maybe what he did herewas that first shot into the side
of the car. That could bewhat he heard, So in theory,
he could be right. He couldhave passed the scene, got up a
quarter mile as soon as he wentby Zodiac sprang out fired a warning shot
into the ramber, which we knowhe did, and then from there Owen

(26:52):
didn't hear anything else. And thenafter Owen's out of earshot of it,
that's when he finishes killing them andmore shots are fired, So he could
be right on that account. I'vealways found it weird that he didn't bring
that up right after, you know, the hours after he's being questioned about
a double shooting, but he doesn'tremember and mentioned hearing the shot, and

(27:15):
he doesn't mention it till days laterwhen he's questioned a second time. So
I always found that strange. Again, sometimes witnesses do strange things. But
you know, I always wonder ifmaybe, And this is why I think
it's more important something you document rightafter the fact in a report versus something

(27:36):
you bring up later on, becauseI think your mind has a tendency to
start overthinking things, start adding things, you start up imagining stuff, and
you say, did I hear ashot? Let me tell them that this
time? You know, we seethat in countless times when things you go
back and compare them to what peopleoriginally said. Not just in THO EARTI

(27:57):
case, but in many pieces.People start adding things later on that they
didn't say up front. So I'malways a big believer, and you go
with what's freshest in someone's mind,and you take that as the more solid
information. Yes, he said heheard a shot about a quarter of a

(28:18):
mile past the turnout, which we'veestimated would be about thirty seconds. You
think an intelligent killer like the Zodiackiller would have waited a little bit longer
until James Owen got completely out oftheir shot. But it's believed he had
his radio on low. So didhe hear something on his radio that he
misconstrued as a shot? I don'tknow. Maybe that's a bit for affectual.

(28:40):
I don't know. It could be. Now here's another thing. So,
and this has always bothered me too. If if your Zodiac and you're
about to get out and shoot Daveand Betty and all of a sudden,
this car comes by. You flash, and you see the lights coming.
You duck down in your car tohide from them because you didn't want them

(29:00):
to see. Whatever the case,to turn around and get out and shoot
right away, to me doesn't makemuch sense. Why would you do that.
You don't know if the person thatjust went by with a cop,
you don't know if they saw yourlicense plate. But yet he gets out
and shoots anyway. Now, thatcould be just because he was so hell

(29:21):
bent on killing someone that night thathe didn't care that he was willing to
take the risk. We know Zodiacsort of acted on impulses, So maybe
he was just so dead set onkilling someone that night that he took that
risk. You know, you know, it seems logically when we look at
it, logically, you say,well, I wouldn't do that. As
soon as a car went by,I'd abort the mission and I'd leave the

(29:42):
scene and wait for another victim anothernight. But Zodiac didn't do that.
So he really really took a riskon killing Dave and Betty because he didn't
know what the driver that just wentby seconds before saw. He could have
identified him later on, and itwould have been nice to know whether James

(30:03):
Owen saw any of the doors openon either vehicle as he passed, because
Ray Grant made a good point thatif James Owen had passed and all the
vehicles doors had been shut, andthe couple had been hidden behind the vehicles
somehow by the killer, why thenafter killing them would he then reopen the

(30:26):
passenger door, which is how itwas found by responding police, unless he
were searching for something. So itwould have been nice to know if James
Owen had seen the vehicle the passengerside door open on the Rambler or not.
That might have explained something and certainlywould have been curious because if it
had been open, then makes nosense. Sorry, if it had been

(30:51):
shut, it would make no sensethat it was later found open when all
the zodiot had to do was hotfrom behind the vehicle, kill a couple
and then leave. Yeah, andagain we have the sketch of what Elwen
claims he saw. We have thetwo cars standing there. It doesn't show
a door open. It's not mentionedthat he saw a door open. He

(31:11):
just saw the second car dark,lagging in chrome. So I tend to
believe that he didn't mention the doorbeing open, and based on what we
see in the sketch, it doesn'tshow a car door open. That's yeah,
that's what I perceived from reading everythingthat because if the dock car doors
opened, you'd have thought that wouldhave been mentioned. Here's something about a

(31:33):
radio, but this time Ed askswas the radio found on in the Rambler.
I recall it was BRS, butunclear with the Rambler. If so,
that helps the above idea. Ihaven't read anything that says the Rambler
radio was on. Do you knowany better? Yeah, I don't remember
the Rambler radio young on. Theone thing that always jumps over about that

(31:56):
case. It jumps out to meis the being partially opened. As cold
as it was, I think thatit would have been unlikely they would have
the door open. But I knowsome people have theorized that perhaps they were
smoking and wanted to let the smokeout of the car. You know,
I don't think that's been proven eitherway, but it could be. Maybe

(32:16):
the Zodiac taps on the window,pretends he's a police officer or whatever the
case, and gets Betty to sortof open the window or crack to see
what he wants that party, Ithink is pretty interesting. We just don't
know why it was open now Edasks for me specifically, but we'll both
answer it with the ushering theory.You know, my theory that he was

(32:39):
on the west Baton Conzodiac pulled inbehind and pushed them over to the the
side the turnout. Keeping in mindthat the seats were found reclined, does
that factor in at all? IfDavid Faraday thought it was a cop,
for example, do you think he'dhave just sat up and moved the car
without adjusting the seat. To me, it just makes more sense that there

(33:00):
was no ushering and the above proposedsituation occurred. The seat being reclined also
says to me that the rambler hasprobably been primarily stationary while there, leaving
only the Robert Connley description not inline. I'm assuming he means not in
line with all the other eyewitnesses,which could very easily just be an errant

(33:24):
statement from Robert Connolly. I thinkwith Pierre Bidoux there's too much off to
have his statement aid in Robert Connolly'sstatement. It's entirely possible he just mentally
flipped the directions. I would answerthis that depending on the exact dynamics of

(33:45):
what transpired when the vehicle of Zodiacpulled in behind the Rambler on the west
bank. It's perfectly feasible David rosefrom his seat and just moved the Rambler
over towards the east bank without adjustin the seat. Robert Connolly not only
stated the Rambler was on the westbank twice, but he stated that it
was facing the south Gate. Wecan choose to decide it may have been

(34:07):
an errant's statement by Connolly, butwe could choose therefore to dismiss any eyewitness
statements when they don't conform to ourpreconceived notion of how a crime unfolded.
I have difficulty with Owen's statement becausehis testimony changed, but if it were
true, my best guess is themoment Zodiac had ushered the couple over towards

(34:28):
the east side, James Owen passedand just failed to notice the occupants of
either vehicle. So I suppose Edis not convinced of Connolly's statement, thinking
he may have been errant. Butfrom what I know from the police reports,
Robert Connolly made two statements. Ithink there were three days apart,

(34:49):
and he gave the exact same statementstwice. So do we just dismiss eyewitness
testimony because it doesn't sort of linkin with the other eyewitness testimony, or
do we take it on face valueand we have to adjust our scenario around
that police report. Well, here'sthe thing. So part of the issue
is, you know, people getconfused sometimes in the reports we see.

(35:15):
You know, for example, Robertgray Smith when he's reading those reports,
he's confused by the writing in them, and he reports that James Own was
coming home from work when he wasactually going to work. I think I
was the first person to figure thatout that he incorrectly had indicated that he
was heading home from work. Sothe reports can be confusing. Now here's

(35:38):
what I think the police sort ofdid a good job with They They went
through every victim or excuse me,every witnesses clocks and watches, and they
check their time and they they sortof sync them up and accounted for any
clocks that are off a little bit. They really did a good job with
that to establish a X minute window. Now I wonder if they actually physically

(36:05):
brought Robert Conley and said, showus the exact spot, because it could
be a case, and I don'tknow this where he's telling them, you
know, from his home. They'resitting there on his front porch or something.
He's saying, yeah, it wason the West Bank. Maybe he's
got his directions mixed up and he'sdescribing the wrong bank and they just wrote

(36:25):
it down as he said it.You know, I'd like to think.
I hope that he physically was there, showing him, showing the police exactly
where the car was at. Thatwould make the most sense to do that.
But it could be something confusing wherehe's at home and he says it
was on this bank here I'm positive, but he's saying, you know,
west, it could he could havemeant the opposite, So it could be

(36:47):
something like that. But I think, and I'm just guessing that they did
a thorough job. Even James Owentold me when I talked to him,
that they had him dry the routefrom his house to that spot, and
they timed that, they drove him. He said he drove it several times

(37:07):
with police officers in the car.So they really did a lot of work
trying to pinpoint stuff. So Iwould think and I would hope that Conley
was there at the spot, youknow, with the police and said this
is the exact spot where that carwas parked. But talking about something earlier,
you know, the whole reclining ofthe seat, I think, depending

(37:30):
on how far that seats recline,it's going to be hard to drive that
car. If Dave you know,drove that vehicle and moved it to another
spot, it would be difficult ifthe seat is way back, and if
he was forced by Zodiac to moveit, let's say, and change the
direction of the car. I tendto doubt he could drive it like that

(37:52):
number one, But then would itmakes sense that he would move it and
then recline the seat back just toget out of the car. Doesn't make
sense, So to me, I'mof the thinking that seat was reclined in
that position because the car was therefor some point of time before the attack
happened. The reason I brought theushering theory in was because I didn't want

(38:19):
to discount Robert Connolly's testimony just becauseit just suited me to dismiss it.
So I tried to incorporate it intothe story to get a better indication of
what could have happened. Now,Robert Connolly was in that area for two
hours, so he knew the areaquite well. And although yeah, I
understand the argument that he might havegot west to East sort of mixed up,

(38:43):
but he did say it was facingthe south Gate, So it would
be nice to know if police,when interviewing him, asked him put the
south Gate into his mind or whetherhe brought up the south Gate, because
the south Gate in respect to thewest Bank he got correct. He knew
exactly that it was on the southside that gate, so he if this

(39:05):
came from him directly and wasn't fedto him, he seemed to know his
cardinal points. So I was onlyusing this as an argument because it wasn't
just the west to East Bank argument. It was the fact he recalled the
south Gate. You got what I'msaying. Yeah, And the thing about
Robert Connley versus James Owen. Let'ssay James Owen has passed away, he's

(39:29):
not alive. Robert Connley, lasttime I checked, is alive. So
maybe it would be worth reaching outto him to sort of just walk us
through things that maybe aren't clear inhis accounting. You know what we've seen,
and maybe we can get a betteridea of what really happened by him

(39:51):
telling us, you know, somaybe at some point I'll put that on
my list of things to reach outto him and see if he can give
us any more information. So haveyou read the next question? Then?
I haven't he says he is RobertConnolly still alive or did he later make
any comments about the case. RobertConnolly was twenty seven years of age in

(40:14):
nineteen sixty eight, so it wouldbe eighteen now, and I haven't heard
anything about his death. Now you'veanswered the question now, so I don't.
We have heard nothing about him dying, so I'm assuming he's still alive.
Obviously, his partner that night,Gassa, was about sixty nine at
the time, so he'd almost certainlybe dead unless he's the oldest person in
America. But Robert Connolly, Ithink he is alive. Yeah, I

(40:37):
mean it's very possible that he isalive. Again, I haven't checked.
I did know where he was living, but this was a while ago.
I checked. As I recall,he wasn't in California any longer. So
be interesting again, interesting to reachout now again eighty years of age.
We go back to the whole youknow, what someone says fifty years later.

(41:00):
How accurate is it going to be? Is it going to be crystal
clearer? We don't know. Isit's going to be something you can fully
trust. We just don't know.Now, before I ask you this next
question, I just want to makeit clear that when ed here is talking
about the final position, I madea point of taking the measurements, and

(41:22):
one of the measurements the police gavethat night was the vehicle. One of
the measurements was ninety three feet.It wasn't seventy three feet, as a
lot of people thought, that's notpossible. If you take those measurements in
the turnout today, which is remarkablysmaller than it was back in nineteen sixty
eight, it puts the car awayfrom the east bank, so it would
have been even further away from theeast bank back then. That was the

(41:45):
final resting position, and the photographsshow it not next to the east bank.
So my argument was the final positionwas different to that described by the
yours. In other words, ifI believed it was on the west bank,
it moved back over to the towardsthe east bank. But the part
of the ushering theory was because hedidn't reach the other side of the east

(42:07):
bank as it was earlier. Hencethere was three different positions that night,
So when he talks about the finalposition, this is what he's referring to
as opposed to the position described bythe yours. Now he says, I'm
a little unclear whether James Owen putthe car on the east bank or in
the final position. When he sayshe saw it with another car, Well

(42:29):
again, if the Zodiac pulled inbehind the vehicle on the west bank and
ushered it across and then pulled toone side of it, that is the
final position away from the east bank. So he asks, is Zodiac on
the east bank or next to thefinal position? Can you clarify? Well,
I've just done it. But thepolice sketches of its final resting position

(42:51):
in the police reports places the rambleat a significant distance from the east bank,
and this can be proved by usingGoogle Maps. I trust the measurements
of the responding officers rather than therecollection of James Owen on the vehicle's relative
positions, unless, of course,David Faradier attempted to back out of the
turnout when James Owen saw the rambler. In other words, he tried to

(43:15):
escape and that's why the vehicle wasmore in the center of the turnout.
Measurements on Google Maps are extremely accurate. As you know, you've been doing
this with a fifty feet at PresidioHeights and even on the much smaller turnout
today, these measurements placed the ramblera significant distance from the east bank.
Even the photographs and the crime scenesshow a Rambler not part close to the

(43:37):
east bank. The measurements proved thisto be the case. Whether people choose
to believe this is up to them. But I would suggest people go to
the police sketches, get the measurements, go to the telegraph pole on the
current Lake Hown Road turnout and measureit themselves and it won't put the rambler

(43:58):
close to the east bank in thatturnout today, and with a much bigger
turnout back in nineteen sixty eight wouldhave been even further away. So that
was my that's my response to that. I don't know if you've got anything
to add to that. Now,I think your point is pretty fair.
Well, you've you've gone through thissignificantly about the fifty feet, haven't you.
Yeah, and we have the benefitof having, you know, exact

(44:22):
measurements. Now I'm guessing and youknow, when they did these reports and
they did these sketches, I'm assumingthey walked off and measured the distances and
they're accurate. Obviously they didn't haveGoogle or Earth or any kind of tools
that we can use today to measuredistances. But you know, I hope

(44:45):
they did all that correctly and themeasurements and everything are right. But it
gives you an idea of the locationand where the cars were parked and re
Betty's body was found with days wasfound. Thirdiac backing out. You know,
I wondered, I've always wondered,you know, how he backed out
without necessarily running over Betty Lou,especially since it was dark. I wonder

(45:07):
how he was able to sort ofmaneuver around without running her over. So
it can give you an idea ofthat area when you look at the measurements
and how much space there were fortwo carrors bodies laying on the ground and
Zodiac backing out. That kind ofstuff. Well, if you go to
the police sketches, they measured BettyLu's body and the position of the rambler

(45:30):
from that telegraph pole. And ifyou look at the images back in nineteen
sixty eight, sixty nine, wheneverthey were taken, that telegraph pole was
inside the turnout. It is thesame telegraph pole today and it is a
long distance behind the gate that's theretoday. So that just shows how shorter

(45:50):
the turnout is from a south andnorth perspective. But also if you actually
look on Google Maps down on theturnout today, you can actually sit probably
an impression of where the old turnoutwas. Now, maybe that's a bit
of my imagination, but it wasfar larger from my estimations. It was
at least twice as big as itis today bare minimum. Yeah, Yeah,

(46:14):
I think that's it to say,right, Ed says ballistics. You
talk about how close both would havebeen to Zed roughly, but how about
each other? In other words,how close were David Faraday and Betty lu
Jensen to each other when pulled outof the car. Can we tell how

(46:35):
close Betty lu Jensen and David Faradaywere at any point of the attack would
Zed had them out of the car? And my answer would be yes.
The autopsy and ballistics show without anydoubt that Betty lu had to have run
from the proximity of the right frontpassenger jaw across Zodiac. Every bullet exhibited
a right to left trajectory at autopsy, meaning her right side was predominantly facing

(47:01):
Zodiac as he fired with three bulletstraveling at an extreme right to left trajectory.
We know approximately where Zodiac was whenhe fired at Betty Lou because of
the cluster of shellcasings on the turnoutfloor. Therefore, we know her exact
flight path. David had to beincapacitated or dead at this point because the

(47:23):
Zodiac killer's back would have been facingDavid when he targeted Betty Lou, which
is extremely unlikely. David was bythe right rear wheel, Betty Lou somewhere
by the passenger door. That ismy answer. I don't know if you've
got a different take. Well,we have to imagine the scenario. Again,

(47:45):
there's no witnesses, so this isall us theorizing in beast on what
the evidence says. But I imaginea scenario where Zodiac pulls them out of
the car, orders them out.Betty's first, David slides out on the
seat behind her, and perhaps oneof two things happens. Betty takes off

(48:06):
running, which results in Zodiac shootingDave up close because we know it was
close because of the markings on Dave, and then start shooting at Betty.
Or Zodiac immediately shoots Dave as hegets out and that sends Betty running,
one of the two scenarios I thinkare most likely. But I think you're

(48:30):
you're spot on about the the trajectoryand the path that she ultimately took,
we can tell and where the bulletswere. You know, there's been some
discussion of a left handed shooter versusa right handed shooter. There's the same
discussion in Paul Stein's attack. Forexample, you sort of theorize, well,

(48:52):
zodiacs a left handed shooter a righthanded shooter based on this. I
don't think you can tell it becauseyou can make any of the shots that
happened with either hand. It justdoesn't make sense that you can tell what
hand someone shot with. Now youcould possibly tell if they're using a gun

(49:12):
that's designed for left handed shooters.For example, there are some guns that's
left handed people specifically will get andthey eject the shells the opposite way of
you know, or the traditional gun. But in this case, I just
don't know how you could even tellthat. You know, a lot of
people have tried to say, well, he's got to be right handed.

(49:35):
Because of this, there's no wayto tell. Because the shell casings unless
you can pinpoint where they came out, if they bounced on anything and sent
them to their final location, theshooting could have been done by someone that's
left handed or right handed. Sothat's one thing that when we talk about
these distances in the crime scene,I think you have to sort of discount

(49:59):
that. I would say, justfrom a statistical standpoint, he was probably
ten to twelve percent chance of beingleft handed, so the likelihood he was
right handed, But that's only fromstatistics. If we look at if the
sketch that Graysmith did is anything togo by and truthful, and he had

(50:20):
his holster on his right side,that would suggest he's right handed, because
you wouldn't put your holster on theopposite side to your dominant hand. But
also if we look at the autopsyof Cecilia Shepherd, if we could look
at the insized wounds, if youwould expect a right handed stabber on top
of the couple to stab predominantly onthe right side from a right to left

(50:45):
trajectory swinging down, you wouldn't goperfectly straight central in the center of your
body. So I don't know ifthe autopsy result of Cecilia Shepherd would suggest
more of a right handed shooter,sorry, a right handed stabber, than
a left handed one. But they'rethe only two things that I could probably

(51:06):
go to to indicate maybe he wasright handed. Particularly having a holster on
your right side. I mean,you would know more about guns than me
from America, So I don't knowwhether that is the case. Yeah,
Traditionally, and myself included, anyonethat shoots, traditionally, most people are
going to have a holster on theirdominant side. That's that's a fact.

(51:29):
Most police officers that I've talked toyou about it, and I've asked them
over the years, you're going tohave that that holster on your dominant side.
Now here's the key thing, andthis has just been something that's been
mentioned on the forum lately. IfZodiac didn't want to shoot anyone at Lake
Berryessa that day, you know whenhe when he attacked, If the gun

(51:51):
was just to scare people to controlthem, and his ultimate goal was to
stab someone, then the knife mighthave been the primary weapon, which mean
that if the knife's on their leftside, they want the knife as their
dominant weapon, and that's why it'son their left side. Yeah, So
I don't think we can know forsure why Zodiac did what he did if

(52:13):
that description is accurate of the holsterbeing on the right side. Now,
i'll give you an example. Thishas come up recently too, my suspect
Mac. He's a left handed person. We know that. But in a
picture of him wearing a cell phoneand nothing else on his hips, just
a cell phone, he has thecell phone on his right side. So

(52:37):
I think that sort of blows thetheory out of the water. Some people
try to say, well, it'sbecause he had a fishing knife on his
left side and that was primarily Nowthere's nothing in the photo of anything hanging
on his hip. He has onething on his hip and it's on his
right side, which would predominantly youwould think if he's a lefty, that
phone would be on his left side, but it's on his right side.
So I think that sort of blowsthey are out of the wire that you

(53:00):
can tell a lot by what somethingwould hit. Some things aren't well,
here's an interesting question for you.Then, I know you remember the old
phones with the dials from seventies,eighties whatever. I always, and I
think most people who are right handedwould hold the receiver up to their left

(53:22):
with their left hand to their leftear, so they've got their right hand
to write or their right hand todial. Is that a fair assessment,
it's to say the phones they haveto vigil myself the old dial, Yeah,
they always hold it with my lefthand because I dial with my dominant
hand. And if you've got apen spare to write notes down, you

(53:45):
want to have your right hand spare, and your left hand is just the
auxiliary sort of floating hand that youuse the receiver pick the receiver up with.
Is that fair to say? Imean, I still hold a phone
now with my left hand, evena mobile now. I again, I'm
visualizing the last time he used oneof those phones. I'm almost positive I
held the phone on my left handand dialed with my right hand. I'm

(54:07):
right handed, and when I usethe phone, i'm talking on the phone,
I usually keep, like a cellphone, for example, in my
right hand. So I think wetend to use, you know, the
hand were dominant with for controlling thingsto make them easier to use. But
again I'm no expert on that.That's I mean, maybe you could contact

(54:29):
someone that's an expert on left handednessversus right handedness, and you know,
if you really want to go offinto the weed and start digging into that
kind of stuff. Well, I'dlike to know back in the day with
the old style payphones, whether mostright handed people held the receiver with their
left hand and dialed with it rightAnd the reason I say that is because

(54:51):
if those fingerprints in the NAPA payphonewere Zodiac and you hold that receiver with
your right hand and then you switchit sorry with your left hand and you
switch it to your right hand,the top of your fingerprints are going to
be on the opposite side of thereceiver. So this would at least tell
us which hand the Zodiac held thatpayphone receiver in it could But then again

(55:15):
we go back to the whole printsoff a poblic phone. How do you
know for sure whose is whose?Was it someone else that just used the
phone before Zodiac? I mean yousort of sort of open yourself up to
now one thing, we could definitelypossibly conclude that might help us to zodiac
or right handed. Was the palmprint that was found on one of the

(55:37):
letters, the exorcist letter. Ibelieve I think you could get a better
indication if that palm print was froma left handed or right handed person,
But that's not been in any policereport as to what palm it actually was.
And in Presidio Heights, we've contemplatedthe idea that when he was trying
to pull Stein back into an uprightposition, he braced his right and on

(56:00):
the dividing panel of the driver sidedoor and rear passenger door. But that
again wouldn't give us any indication whetherit was right handed or left handed,
because that's the only position you canpossibly maneuver yourself to haul somebody back into
an upright position, So that doesn'tgive us a clue. I don't know
if handwriting analysis can indicate whether somebodyisn't left handed or right handed. I

(56:22):
don't know if you've examined that well. You know, some people have pointed
out and again, since my suspectMac is left handed, they've looked at
his rating quite a bit. Youknow, the slant in his rating as
a lefty match is the slant inZodiac's rating, they slant the same way.
But again, can you tell anythingfrom Matt I don't know. The

(56:45):
check marks that he makes seem tobe backwards from what I would do,
so that might mean that that's alittle telltale side. Now I don't require
the Zodiac making any check marks oranything. That would be interesting if he
ever did. But as far asthe slant I know from from just looking
at my suspects left handed rating,it slants the exact same way as Zodiac.

(57:07):
So you know, either Zodiac isleft handed or it doesn't make a
difference. The slant can be appliedto someone that's lefty or rating. When
you're making the letter, oh doyou like me, put your pen initially
on the right side of the Oand go anti clockwise to complete the O.

(57:29):
Now would a left handed person dothe opposite? Well, there you
go, and this is you know, you'd see the dot on the page
where the person began the point ofcontact. And that's the thing you can
you can go find a writing quoteunquote expert. But now it comes down
to opinion. Now where you knowthat can be argued. Well, this

(57:51):
writing opinion rating Expert's opinion is notgood because this other one says different.
It's you know, I think afterthe whole river side, if you ask
a thing, you know, itjust proves that we need to rely on
physical evidence, not an opinion ofa writing expert, although again I think
it can give us some clues andwe shouldn't just discard it altogether. But

(58:14):
in this case, and I thinkpolice are on the same page. They
want physical evidence to solve this keys, not handwriting, not circumstantial clues.
They want physical evidence, a printmatch, DNA match. I think everything
else is just sort of you know, further down the chain. We'll move
on to a question from Ed againabout Lake Berryessa. This time he says,

(58:37):
regarding Lake Berryessa not being discussed byZodiac other than vaguely doing in the
people in the North Bay area andthe count changing for that month, I
feel that Zodiac would have said hewas not the killer. If he was
not the killer, much like thetalk show thing, he'd have said it
was a phony or something, becausehe seemed to care about specific things and

(59:00):
how they were viewed. He wouldn'thave wanted him tied to it if he
thought the costume was stupid and makehim look differently than desired. I don't
know why he didn't just claim itwas a phony attack anyway, because Brian
Hartnell survived. But I think himnot claiming that makes it likely he was

(59:20):
the attacker and ultimately satisfied with howit went down. So the question is
probably why do you think he didn'tSome people believe this was a copycat,
but he doesn't, because otherwise Zodiacwould have spoke up and said that wasn't
him. Yeah, do you feelthat's the case. I think that makes

(59:44):
sense. I would say the Zodiacwas linked to many crimes, many of
which he never commented on at all. I think the Domingus Edwards of murders
were mentioned in about seventy one,weren't they, and he never connected himself
to that either, and he certainlycould have. I don't believe he wrote
a letter detailing the crime, becausethis was his only canonical attack thus far.

(01:00:09):
When a victim gave a comprehensive accountof what transpired that that day.
Brian Hartnell did Zodiac's job for him, including detailing the costume. So I
don't know personally what Zodiac could haveadded that Brian Hartnell didn't yeah. You
know, he did give plenty ofdetails, and you know, people said,

(01:00:30):
why didn't he respond and give moredetails, you know, if the
police had everything that they really neededfrom Brian. Here's one for you,
Mike, because you've contacted somebody recently. He said, are the girls that
saw the unidentified man still alive andtheir names known? That's the three girls

(01:00:53):
from Pacific Union College at Lake Berryessa. I know you spoke to the kid
that was with his far. I'mwondering about the girls and whether they were
ever late on whether they ever latercommented on the case, so you can
you can add your you got incontact with David I think, wasn't it.

(01:01:13):
Yeah, I was in contact withthe dentist's son. That's in the
report which I posted. I sharedthat on I think on my site on
Tom Lloyd's form. If people wantto go back and just look at the
gist of that conversation, you know, just to touch on him real quick.
The key takeaways that he saw werethat zodiac or I don't want to

(01:01:35):
say zodiac. The guy that hesaw were a phrase that was sort of
uncoordinated, having trouble navigating the ground, seemed to be out of place.
That was his takeaway. Seemed tobe out of shape, not physically fit,
and able to move around well.Those were his key takeaways. But
he did say that he was notclose enough to give a full detailed description

(01:02:00):
of his facial features and things likethat, but just his overall movements and
his general feeling of the guy wasthat he looked out of place because of
he just didn't seem like someone thatcould be out there maneuvering well. But
when then we flip over to thegirls, I did have contact with one
of them. I posted that informationas well on Tom's site. People can

(01:02:23):
go over there and check that out. You know, her description based on
what was detailed in the reports oneof the girls, and again I reached
out to a few of them.I did have contact with one. She
sort of reiterated what she saw inthe report. What she stayed in the

(01:02:43):
report is what she told me.And as I recall, she didn't She
says she has been contacted in quitea while about that any official capacity of
re looking at people. You know, I sent her pictures of my suspect,
and I don't recall her her recollectionof him versus what he if she

(01:03:06):
dismissed him or whatever it was.But I think at this point, though
she added that it's it's been solong, she's not super clear on things.
But again, this is the issue. When you go back and talk
to someone that saw something fifty yearsago, their memories fade, they make
changes, things you know in theirmind are not as clear. So I

(01:03:28):
always go back to the early reportsand go off that it seems like the
man that they saw, the threegirls saw was physically fit. He was
six foot six foot two, Hewas a good looking guy. They said,
we look at that, we comparethat to the to the Dennist,
the doctor's son, the Dennis son, he's not physically fit. He's having

(01:03:52):
trouble maneuvering the area. He looksout of shape. So in my mind
I conclude these are two different people. But again, this is just one
of those things where we're really nevergoing to know the answer to that.
Do you view doctor ray Field andhis son's sighting and the three girls from

(01:04:13):
Pacific Union College with equal skepticism ordo you think one is more likely than
the other to be zodiac or notat all? Well, you know,
I if out of the two,I would think that the guy watching the
girls was not Zodiac because again physicallyfit, good shape, over six feet
tall. We look at the Zodiac'sactual description. The guy that we know

(01:04:39):
was Zodiac. He described as fivefoot eight to six feet tall. He's
got a belly hanging over his trousers. Those are the exact words coming from
the police report. He looked,you know, Brian said, he looked
out of shape, looked bulky,looked heavy. So that more that lines

(01:04:59):
up more or with what you knowRayfield saw with the guy that he saw
sort of fits that description more thanthe guy that was watching the girls.
Now, could the guy have beenwatching the girls have Benzer the egg?
His clothes were sort of similar,but his physical description just doesn't match.
And at the end of the day, I personally believe he was just a

(01:05:20):
guy, maybe a little bit ofa creeper, watching some girls sunbathing.
You know, it might make hima little bit creepy, but it doesn't
make him a killer. But youknow, since he never came word,
since he was never identified, it'ssort of as a mystery lingering to this
day. Now, Brian Hartnell saidhe was a poor judge of height.

(01:05:42):
The three girls mentioned the suspect beingabout six six foot one, which is
a little bit tall from what theeyewitnesses said a Presidio Heights, etc.
And Michael Majoe, couldn't it bejust a simple case that the three girls
were just a poor judge of heightas well? Well, it could be,
but the fact that three of themsaid he was over six feet tall

(01:06:02):
from their standpoint of elevation, becausewe have always spoke about elevation and looking
down at a suspect, say atPresidio Highs, but here they are lying
flat on an incline looking up ata suspect. Well, that's that's the
bad thing about this case overall,because you have you know, you go

(01:06:23):
one by one, Mike Michelle isseated in a car. You look at
the girls, they're laying down.You look at heart. Now he's a
poor judge of height because he's extremelytall himself. You look at the Presidio
Heights witnesses that first saw Zodiac fromup elevated all around. There's just not

(01:06:43):
real good clear indications of height.Now. Eventually the witnesses came down to
the lower floor of the Robins Kidsand saw Zodiac standing on ground level.
But still, how do you judgethat from fifty feet away? Is how
do they determined? Did they?You know, police go back and say,
okay, how far over this roofof this cab was he about?

(01:07:05):
How you know in relation to thatstop sign over there? Was he shorter
than that, taller than that?So these are the things we really don't
know. But you know, DonaldFalk, Donald Falk is sort of an
enigma to me. You know,he's driving around looking for a black mail,
which fits the description of who he'slooking for. Yet he sees this

(01:07:29):
white guy. Never slows down,you know, he slows down, but
he doesn't stop, and he's ableto later on supposedly give this guy's complete
description head to toe. Is justbaffling. He's the fact he's in a
car, moving and looking for ablack mail, but he somehow can describe
this guy right down to the shoeshe was wearing. You know, I
just I've always found it an issuewith that, And I've always found an

(01:07:53):
issue with falc waiting a month tocome forward and send that memo that he
did a month later. If hewas, you know, doing good police
work, you would document that thatnight and say, oh my gosh,
they just corrected this description. Ijust saw this guy. Here's what I
saw, Here's what he looked like. Let me do a sketch. I
can give you good details that didn'thappen. He didn't participate in the composite

(01:08:15):
sketch creation, so evidently I wouldthink that maybe the police sort of dismissed
it as him not coming forward soonenough. We'll come back to Donald Fauk
in a while when we talk aboutyour suspect. Right, oh Ed again
asks has Brian Heart now commented aboutdeer Lodge more recently and his thoughts now

(01:08:41):
on whether it was deer Lodge orsuggested to him? He seems both interested
in the case and intelligent enough todetermine if it was suggested to him or
not. Do you want to takethat well? I know some people have
reached out to Brian Heart now.I've reached out to him in the past.
I haven't heard back them. Somepeople have had luck interacting with him.

(01:09:03):
I don't know what his thinking is. I haven't seen anything posted about
his recent memories that kind of thing. But again, for me, I
go back to am I going totrust everything he says fifty years later?
Or am I going to trust whathe said in the earlier reports. For
me, I'm going to rely onwhat he said in the report. So

(01:09:24):
the mentions that we see in thereports are what I go by in regards
to what Hartnell remembers or new.I would also say, I've seen nothing
about him speaking recently about the crime. He couldn't recollect the prison name in
nineteen sixty nine, so I askinghim in twenty twenty two is of much
use. It wouldn't be reliable.As you've stated, what he said back

(01:09:46):
then is more important than what hesaid what he would say now. Yeah,
And it's just sort of touching onthe whole Dear Lodge thing. You
know. Some people said, well, maybe it wasn't even Colorado, Maybe
it wasn't even Dear Lodge. Maybehe said something else. The fact that
there was a prison escape in Montanaat Deer Lodge. To me, all

(01:10:09):
things being equal, outcomes Razor.It's most likely the solution that's correct is
that he did say Deer Lodge,which is an important clue because that wasn't
printed, that wasn't really widely coveredin any California newspapers, you know,
I, Tom Void, others havelooked and found no articles mentioning that in
California. So if Zodiac knew that, how did he know that? That

(01:10:34):
could show some kind of established linkto Montana to get that news, to
have that information, and might bea clue to who Zodiac was. Just
for people listening, there was aprison escape on September the twenty first,
nineteen sixty nine, that involved KarlPius and Ronald Woods who escaped from Deer

(01:10:56):
Lodge. I think Jerusis suggested itto me about the idea. Did the
police suggest this to Brian Heartnell ornot? I suppose that's possible, but
it's equally possible it was it wasmentioned by the Zodiac rather than planted in
Brian Hartnell's mind. So I knowyou're of the opinion that it was more

(01:11:18):
likely not planted there by police,and this was brought up by his own
volition. Is that Is that fairto say? Yeah? And just I'm
trying to visualize that the various descriptionsin interviews with heart now that the reports
sort of replay the conversation and andmaybe you'll remember this better than me,

(01:11:42):
and almost positive he says something Itwas some prison in Monte Montana. So
to me, that wasn't planning thatin his mind. That's him saying it
was some prison in Montana, somethinglarge, something two words. So to
me, that's the most out thisanswer. We're looking for a prisoner Montana,
and since there was a prison escapein Montana. To me, I

(01:12:06):
put two and together and it makesfour. And I'm perfectly happy that he
had the right place, and itis dear Lodge. If Zodiac brought up
this thing about an escape from DeerLodge or Montana, then it's likely he
concocted the story about being an exconvict from Colorado as well. So I

(01:12:27):
would ask, if this is true, why did he choose Colorado if this
recollection by Brian is also true,because that was mentioned in the police report
as well, wasn't it. Well, that's the thing. I don't and
maybe you're gonna have to clarify thisfor me, because I don't see Colorado
mentioned in there. Isn't mentioned inthere. Yeah, Sergeant William White mentioned

(01:12:53):
that this is what Brian Hartnell toldhim. Okay, so now if the
second hand off off Sergeant Liam White. But nevertheless that's what he said.
Well, and that's here now here'swhere we go into an issue. So
let's say Hartnell says Montana and Whiteremembers it as Colorado, and there's a
mistake. There's the report in theone I'm visualizing the you know, where

(01:13:18):
they're putting down in the print versionof what was said by Brian in the
interview. He said some prison ofMontana in sayth Colorado. He said Montana
specifically, something with two words,and that's when the cop according to the
notes, suggest Deer Lodge. Soto me, Brian was certain that it

(01:13:40):
was Montana, whereas if the otherofficer says he says Colorado, that's sort
of a second hand information. Therecould have been something lost in translation there.
But as we've said before, itcould have been both. Because an
escape from Deer Lodge is not thesame as an ex convict from Colorado.
He could be both. Well,that's true, we could have made up
both. They're not contradictory to oneanother. But here's the key difference.

(01:14:03):
There wasn't a prisoner escape in Coloradoat the time, So to me,
the most logical answer is the closestto your large Yeah, I mean,
being six days before, it's certainlyworth investigating isn't it. Yeah, just
the fact someone would randomly pick outa prison escape in Montana of our places

(01:14:25):
in Deerlage, and there just happenedto be a prison escape there. To
me, it's too much of acoincidence. I think the most logical answer,
as he said to you, Relige, Well that's the end of Ed
Rice's four thousand questions. So thankyou, Ed. Thanks Ed. So
we'll move on to Wes Ray,who asked this question. I'm not trying

(01:14:47):
to suggest that zodiaca is responsible forall the non canonical murders and crimes he
has been linked to by researchers orhas claimed responsibility for on his own.
But does the fact that nearly allof them are still unsolved to this day
ever cause you to pause and reconsiderthat some or all of them could actually

(01:15:09):
be authentic Zodiac crimes. I mean, the odds that he would randomly choose
crimes to link himself to that wouldstill be unsolved some fifty years later has
to be astronomical. Well, I'llsay I don't agree with that at all,
because the Zodiac effectively claimed or insinuatedhis involvement in the Snoozy and Furlong

(01:15:30):
murders for nearly two years and corneredby his lies. In nineteen seventy one,
he doubled down by claiming the murderof Kathy Biak, when we all
know all three murders were committed byCarl Francis Verner. Apart from the zodiac
linking himself to the abduction of KathleenJohn's, he never fully committed to the
murder of Sergeant Richard Raditicch and SherryJoe Bates all the disappearance of Donne alas

(01:15:54):
he left the door open by sayingI shot a man in a part car
with a thirty eight, so ifit was ever solved, he could say
I wasn't referring to a cop buta man. He only claimed riverside activity,
so this could mean Sherry Joe Batesmurder all the communications or both.
In other words, he never fullycommitted to claiming any murders. He never

(01:16:15):
even claimed he was involved in thedisappearance of Donna last just mailed a vague
card insinuating he may have been.So he was never taking any risks whatsoever
by unequivocally linking himself to a murderby name all details only known to him
and the police. So I don'tthink he outright claimed any crimes. Well,

(01:16:35):
I think you're already sort of leftthe door open. And you know,
he sort of wanted people to thinkthat he could be responsible for just
about anything. You know, inhis later letter, it'll look like killings
of anger, you know, weird, different miscellaneous kinds of deaths could be
him. Almost like he wanted peopleto think, Hey, someone died from

(01:16:58):
a heart attack, it could beZodiac. You know, he wanted people
out there to be thinking about himand wondering what he was doing next.
I personally, there are a lotof bad people in California in the sixties.
There are a lot of people allover California doing all kinds of terrible
things. So to try and linkevery one of them to Zodiac, you
know, I think is mistake becausedidn't kill everyone in California that died in

(01:17:23):
the nineteen sixties. But you know, you could almost link unlimited amounts of
people to him. What I dofind interesting in the ones that I find
more compelling because they're not It's notcommon for a killer to correspond with police,
to write newspapers, to make callsthat's not common. That doesn't happen.

(01:17:45):
Most criminals do not want any interactionwith police. They want to avoid
the police, They want to avoidattention for their crimes. So any crimes
in which someone called police wrote lettersto the newspapers, those are ones I
think are more interesting that I wouldput more weight in possibly being Zodiac.
You know, Ray Davis, Sherry, Joe Bates, those kinds of cases

(01:18:10):
where there's that kind of interaction couldbe you know, Zodiac. Possibly I'd
put more weight in them being Zodiacthan than some of the other ones.
But again, it's not exclusive toZodiac. There are other people that do
the same thing. It's just notcommon. But the next question I believe
is from Jim r. He says, also, I'd like your opinion on

(01:18:31):
how Zodiac obtained Chester Klingle's pio box, if he was not or did not
have a connection with mister Klingle.I'll let you answer that. It's been
a hot topic over the last fewmonths. Yeah. Well, first of
all, we have to say,we don't know one percent that that is
from Zodiac, so let's just putthat out there right away. But it
could have been any number of ways. It could have been someone that had

(01:18:55):
access to his keys, could havebeen someone that just found them. It
could have been somebody that had agrudge with him. Any number of different
scenarios could explain how those keys werefound. You know, the numbers on
the keys corresponding with po boxes,you would think, and Zodick was pretty
aware of a lot of stuff,you know, from probably from studying it

(01:19:18):
and reading it in these crime magazines, you probably had to think that those
keys would be tracked back to someone, back to an owner. So what
a better way to know that.Hey, I'll you know, point to
this person and send the police downa rabbit hole searching after him when they
tracked these keys back to him,and and you know, might get some

(01:19:41):
enjoyment out of that. That seemsto be a motivation for wanting to send
those keys, knowing they'd be linkedback to someone. It would be dumb
if Chester Klingle sent them. Idon't know what his motivation to be,
because again, you know, thinking, if you're smart, those keys are
going to be track Why would yousend your own picture of your own keys

(01:20:01):
back to you know, to thepolice. Yeah, I don't understand that.
And obviously Chester Klingale, I don'tthink talked about this publicly. He
was looked at by police, hewas ruled out. But it's interesting to
think about if if those keys werehis, and he was, you know,

(01:20:23):
implicated by whoever sent this letter,why did they choose him? Was
it random? Was it someone thatknew him and had a grudge about him,
or just we don't know. Butto be clear, you cannot find
post office box keys on the streetand then go to the post office and
ask the identity of who they belongto, can you? Now that's that's

(01:20:45):
a good point. You know,if I walked in with keys and just
said, hey, I found thesePO box keys laying on the ground in
the park line because I have aPO box. If I found some keys
and just randomly went and said,hey, who do these keys belong to?
They're not going to tell you that, you know, so this isn't
knowledge that's going to be available tojust the general public. But then then

(01:21:06):
again, what's interested me is onething. I noticed that there was someone
by King by the last name ofKlingle working at the post office, and
from what I understand, Tom saysthat guy was not related to Chester.
It's just an interesting tidbit, mightnot meet anything, but there was someone
there that was working there by thatname. I always found that interesting,

(01:21:30):
although it maybe nothing at all.I tentatively, probably like you do,
a little bit on the side,that this Eureka card was the Zodiac Killer
now, because I believe the photocopiedkeys were a clue to the name Chester.
I've mentioned this before in a previouspodcast. I believe that the person

(01:21:51):
knew the identity of the person whoowned the keys and didn't just find them.
And this I have to credit withmen from Voice Forum, and he
pointed out that, and I've saidthis to you before that Chester Carlson was
an inventor of electro photography used inphotocopy as worldwide. So we have to

(01:22:12):
ask the question, why would theZodiac use as xerox image of keys trace
back to Chester Klingle a style ofcommunication he had never used before to present
us with Chester Klingle's keys, whowas the namesake of Chester Carlson who invented
the process. The Zodiac gave usclues to a name I believe anyway,

(01:22:32):
in the Dripping PENCRD Halloween Card,Pines Card, and Monticello cards. So
the argument this was a clue toa name in the Eureka card has history.
I believe he knew Chester Klingle insome capacity and probably likely stole the
keys as opposed to finding them,which I don't think is a possibility,

(01:22:54):
But you know, it's just rankedspeculation on my part at this point.
Yeah, and unfortunately can go downa lot of rabbit holes. Maybe the
whole reason for sending photocopies of themwas because he couldn't take the keys,
so a photo copy to them,then put them back where Chester kept them
where that was, and then mailedthem in saying, Okay, here's a

(01:23:14):
way I can send these keys in, get police searching, get them on
Chester's trail. But Chester never knowshis keys are missing. If that's the
case, then we really have tolook at people in the inner circle of
Chester Clingland, say who would dothis? Who had access to his keys?
Is it a co worker or someplace? Is it a family member?

(01:23:35):
Is it a friend who you know? There's no one that would have access
to my keys. I keep mykeys in a certain location and the only
people that would know about that aremy family members. They're not usually out
in the open someplace, But couldit be Chester sat his keys down at

(01:23:55):
a restaurant one day and went tothe bathroom and Zodiac past off. And
I mean you could you could godown endless rabbit holes of speculation of how
Zodiac could have got a copy ofthose keys or whoever again, let me
rephrase, whoever mailed this letter,not assuming of Zodiac could have gotten the
keys in some other way. Butyou know, it's an interesting point.
How did this person have access tothe keys? Because whoever mailed it,

(01:24:20):
if they had the full set ofkeys, could have just mailed the entire
set of keys in a package orsomething to the police, you know,
to the newspaper to take credit forit. You know, we just don't
know, and unless that person's everidentified, we may never know. And

(01:24:42):
why wouldn't he just photograph the keyswith an instematic camera so they can't be
traced anywhere and just send it thatway, which is far easier than looking
about photocopying things. Or if thekeys were the message and not the numbers,
he could have just drawn a coupleof keys, like he did on
many of his communications, or pastedsomething. But he chose deliberately to photocopy

(01:25:02):
it. I do like the ninsuggestion, but of course you know it
could be coincidence. Again, butI don't know how rare Chester is as
a name in America at that point. So for him to be the inventor
of this process and have the samefirst name as Chester, which ties in
with the keys, and like yousaid, there's no way Chester Klinger will

(01:25:25):
send The only way he would sendan image of his keys into the police
is if the numbers cannot be tracedcorrectly back to him, because it makes
absolutely no sense. Yeah. Andthen also if the person at mailvis wanted
police to think that Chester was Zodiac, why not just an anonym's tip Chester

(01:25:45):
as the Zodiac. You need tocheck him out. And then the police
could have just followed up that lead, as opposed to some random keys in
having to track them down and gothrough the whole process. Well have you
read the next question? I haven'twant to read it. Where is it?
Do you have a vigo on Twitter? Okay, let me see.

(01:26:06):
It's a good job. It's thelast podcast in it for a while,
is it did you send me acopy of or is it the one I
sent you? Yeah? You wantme to tell you what he says.
Yeah, you can read it.He said, I'd love to hear Richie's
thoughts on mike suspects and also ifeither of you have any other suspects you
feel could be him, Yeah,i'd I'd love to hear your opinions.

(01:26:29):
Well, you know my opinion onit, don't you. Yeah, but
you can you can share it withlisteners. All right, this is what
I'll say, and this is whatI've always said. So this is you
know, while I have continually saidI have nothing against people searching for suspects
using the Internet, I don't likethe methodology of suspect chasing. I would
say, if, and I saidthis to Ned the other day, if

(01:26:53):
this was a reliable technique, everybodyshould have arrived at the same suspect.
But there are hundreds, if notthousands, of persons of interest in the
Zodiac case. I am sure thateverybody prides their technique of being better than
everybody else's technique and would have toclaim this because if they didn't, they

(01:27:13):
would be arguing for somebody else's suspect. Now, I've always preferred, as
you've done, Mike, the techniqueof discovering the most likely anchor point of
the Zodiac Killer through geographic profiling andgoing from there. While I would only
say seventy chance, I tend tobelieve the Zodiac lived in Valejo and possibly
within a ten minute walking distance ofthe Valejo payphone. I can't say that

(01:27:38):
for certain, but that's my estimation. So I think you are correct in
focusing your primary attention there, andif it doesn't turn out to be mac
in the future, which I knowyou're confident of, then I would stick
with the principle of searching that areanow. While there are some interesting aspects

(01:27:58):
to your suspect, to me,the biggest stumbling block, which I know
you disagree with, is his ageof twenty three and nineteen sixty nine,
And for me that doesn't totally rulehim out, but makes him highly unlikely.
In my opinion. It is,of course, and I think Mike
Ridelli pointed this out, more importantof how old the killer looked in nineteen
sixty nine and not how old heactually was, because people aged differently.

(01:28:25):
But to me, the three setsof eyewitnesses at Presidi or Heights giving an
age of about forty is the biggestnegative point. To William Andrew being the
killer the biggest difference. I knowyou've had a discussion on this on the
forum recently and it's centered around DonaldFauc and I would always give a different

(01:28:46):
reason to the people have on theforum in the sense that I am absolutely
certain that Donald Fax stopped the killerbecause the timeline of him responding to the
first broadcast, heading along Jackson andturning and meeting arm and Pealasetti, if
you agree with that scenario, isfrankly impossible. Arma Palaceetti could never get

(01:29:11):
to that point in that time becauseit would have only been about ninety seconds.
So that means Donald Foch must havegone somewhere else away from the crime
scene to which he should have beenresponding, and therefore the most likeliest scenario
is Zodiac directed him away from thecrime scene to prevent him going to the
Crinty and discovering the murder, andso he'd get away clean. That's my

(01:29:33):
opinion. The timeline doesn't make anysense. That's why, even though Donald
Fouch's statement was a month later,I believe the timeline proves he had to
have stopped the killer. I knowyou disagree, but that's fine. But
what I would say on the discussionon Tom Void's forum. I have analyzed

(01:29:54):
all the suspects, even Richard Geikowski. But what I would say is,
I look at him, I analyzethe things. There's one good thing about
him, and the rest I'm notconvinced about. But what I do do
is make my opinion known on thatsuspect, and then I leave it and
let other people get on with theirinterest in that suspect. I don't continue

(01:30:17):
to argue against the point ad infinitum, which quite frankly is a bit boring.
Yeah, I'm right there with you. One thing I think listeners will
agree on is that you and Ihave never sat down and kissed each other's
butts, As far as bring witheach other at all times over all things,
we definitely have different opinions. Onething I do want to point out

(01:30:40):
is that Mac was twenty four innineteen sixty nine, twenty three, But
sorry, sorry, he I lookat again. You get on a key
point. Age is determined by whatsomeone perceives, not necessarily the actual age.
So if a prime example, someonejust posted on Tom's site, Andrew

(01:31:02):
the other day posted some high schoolsenior pictures from I think it was nineteen
seventy, and I would if youlooked at it, I think most people
would tell you that the seniors andthese pictures look like they could be thirty
years old. That's just the lookof the time, the clothes, the
style, it made them look older. And you can go find the on

(01:31:25):
Time site right now and find thatpost and look at these pictures, and
I think most people are going toagree that those people look a lot older
than seventeen eighteen years old. Sothat to me is just proof that age
interpreted, you know, by howwe bring it in, how we visualize
it, you know, looking throughyearbook photos. I bet you those same

(01:31:46):
witnesses would have said these people werethirty years old, five thirty years old
when they were seventeen or eighteen.So to me, I'm not hung up
on the age. I go backto Mike Mijol. Mike Mijo said the
guy he's twenty six to thirty yearsold. Mac was twenty five. You
know a lot of people just likejust dismiss Michoe and erase him like he

(01:32:08):
never existed. He you know,he felt confident he could identify the person.
Again, everyone likes to say hedidn't get a good luck, but
he said he was confident he couldidentify the guy. He gave key things
up close, wide round face forexample. There were things that he did
provide up close and personal that youknow the Robbins, for example, who

(01:32:30):
saw zodiac from fifty feet away atnight? Could you tell someone from that
distance was heavy set glasses or crewcut? Absolutely? Could you define things
close in their in their face,either their nose, their eyes, or
mouth, their ears at that distance, I don't think you could have that
definition. A lot of people liketo say that they had there was a

(01:32:53):
dome light on in the cab.It doesn't matter. We're not talking about
two or three feet away. We'renot talking about a odd daylight situation.
We're talking about fifty feet away atnight. And anyone that says that you
can make out every definition in lineon someone's face, every feature of their
face, from fifty feet away atnight is just Anyone making that argument is

(01:33:15):
just simply wrong. You're going tohave a more reliable, accurate depiction of
someone if you're closer to them,and if the lighting conditions are better.
Those are the two ways to makesomething more accurate seeing someone from further away
in poor lighting conditions is not thesame. So for me, I'm open
to the age. I'm open tothe age. Also, because of Heartnell

(01:33:40):
and Slate both said that Zodiac soundedlike he was in his twenties. Now
again, you can't put as muchweight in a voice description of someone as
you can in a visual sighting,obviously, but you can oftentimes get an
idea of someone's age when they're talking, if they're younger or older. And
both officers Slate and Heartnell felt thatZodiac was in his twenties. So when

(01:34:02):
I combine all of that, Isay, I'm perfectly open to Zodiac being
in his twenties. I go backto Falk giving this description of Zodiac in
his forties. Obviously, if Falkstopped Zodiac and talked to him and had
a face to face meeting with theguy, and he was outside his cab

(01:34:24):
giving a description, you know thatwould be very compelling. That would be
hard to argue. If you're havinga face to face conversation with someone that's
standing outside your car. That's alittle bit different than everything else. But
the problem is, nowhere do wesee it documented that that was the case.
It's all speculation that that really happened. It's not documented any place.

(01:34:45):
Falk said it never happened, AndI trust Falc as far as I can
throw him. For obvious reasons.He's changed his story so many times.
He waited thirty days to send thatmemo of what he saw. Reason after
reason I can think of to dismisshim. But the only way I would
put solid weight in what Folk saidit was if it was documented, and

(01:35:05):
if he was face to face withthe guy having a conversation, that would
be hard hard to dispute his descriptionof the age. But since that's not
documented anywhere, I don't really putany weight in what claims he thought.
That's basically the crux of the matter, isn't it. I believe, Well,
I will say I believe one hundredpercent that Donald Fouk stopped the Zodiac.

(01:35:29):
I can't see any other option basedon the timeline. You would contest
that. So that's probably where wediffer. I would gather if if you
believe that he did certainly stop thezodiac, your thoughts may change a little
bit. Well, yeah, ifI get a document that shows that the
next day Folk came forward and saidI had a conversation with Zodiac. He

(01:35:53):
was right outside of my window.He was forty years old. If I
see that in writing that it wasdocumented, then I would certainly put more
weight in it. But to thispoint, the only documentation we see from
Foulk originates a month after the sading, and then you know what we see
in the documentary years later he startsto add living on all kinds of details
and changing things up. So forme, I'm going to hold foul in

(01:36:15):
the category of very unreliable and I'mnot putting any much stuck in what he
says. So just to be clear, then do you say that William Andrew
is the Zodiac killer or how closeto one hundred percent are you confident?
Because you never stated that Ross Sullimwere the Zodiac you he was your strongest

(01:36:36):
suspect at one point, but Idon't think you outright stated he was the
Zodiac. You are much more confidentof William Andrew. So is William Andrew
the Zodiac or are you a sortof ninety nine ninety percent? Where do
you stand on him at the moment? So here's here's my thinking. I'm

(01:36:57):
one hundred percent confident in my opinion. Macs the Zodiac now not a shred
of doubt. I'm realistic to knowthat I'm human and I could be wrong.
I accept that I'm not so blindthat if a DNA confirmed someone else
with the Zodiac, I would gladlyaccept that and say I was wrong,
and accept that there are people outthere I know listening right now. They're

(01:37:20):
so hung up on a suspect.They wouldn't believe if the police came out
and held a press conference today andsaid this person's prince in DNA match this
this other person and it wasn't asuspect, I guarantee they would not accept
that. I would accept that.I know I'm human, I know I
can make a mistake. I knowI can be wrong, But based on
everything I find, I'm confident he'sthe Zodiac, because again I go back

(01:37:45):
to the whole phone thing, whichwas just the theory that he lived that
close. But to find someone wholived that close that had an interest in
ciphers and codes that we can provedid that had handwriting, which the more
and more I look at it,the more closely it resembles Zodiac. I
was hoping that it would look nothinglike Zodiac and I would cross him off
the list pretty quickly, and insteadit looks a lot like Zodiacs. The

(01:38:09):
fact that he had a property inEureka where this letter was mailed from,
that we think could be Zodiac,the fact that his major life events line
up with zodiacs, pauses and startsin communications. When I think all of
this collectively together, to me,the most logical answer is that he's the

(01:38:29):
Zodiac. You know, he fitsthe overall description of Zodiac. He was
five foot eight, he was heavy, he had a round face. You
know, that is the overall descriptionof Zodiac. And again we can debate
on the age of what Zodiac reallywas. Physically, as far as height
and weight, he's right there.He's five foot eight, two hundred pounds

(01:38:53):
with glasses. So for me,it's the most logical answer that someone that
has an interest in Cipher's had handwritingwhich looks so close, who lines up
with so many other things. Tome, it's clear in my mind that
the odds of all that lining upjust don't make sense that it would be
someone else. But I'm also arealist. I know it's going to take

(01:39:15):
fingerprints or DNA linking to Zodiac toconfirm that so until that day happens,
I will sit back confident that I'mcorrect, and if I'm proven wrong,
I will own up to it andsay I was wrong someone else's the zodiac.
If I'm proven right, I willtake a victory lap on some of
the trolls. For sure, arethat have enjoyed their They're attacking of me,

(01:39:43):
and I'm sure if I'm proven wrong, they're going to come out and
take another victory lap over me thatI was wrong. So again I have
a reputation I'm staking on that Ithink I'm right in this instance, and
I hope time will tell that Iam right, and I hope if I'm
wrong, I don't care. Ijust want to know who it was.
I want the case to be solved. I want DNA and genealogy to come

(01:40:06):
out and confirm who the zodiac was. To this case can finally be solved,
no matter whether I'm right or wrong. And just for those people that
have reached out and asked, youknow, although Rich and I are going
to step back from doing the podcast, I do plan on releasing something here
in the near future about Mac morein detail. People have wanted to know

(01:40:29):
more about him. They've had questions. They've wanted me to know answer certain
things. So I do plan onreleasing an episode in the future about Mac
that people can stay subscribed here andlisten to. You first found Mac by
searching for people that lived close tothat payphone, because you've always well for

(01:40:50):
many years anyway, argued that theZodiac may have possibly walked to that pay
phone, and that's how you discoveredMac. That's fair to say, isn't
it? Definitely? Definitely? Sosubsequently, because you found him, you
found all this other stuff. Now, putting that original finding apart. If

(01:41:10):
you found all this other stuff sinceyou found he lived, he had an
address near the paper And should Isay you found all this extra stuff about
Mac. If all this other stuffyou found, but you went back and
flicked and Mac actually lived in Fairfield, would you still be as strong on
him now? If you took theaddress element away, I'd be interested in

(01:41:33):
him. But to me, Istill think whoever Zodiac was Mac or someone
else, they lived in marking distanceof that phone booth, because it's the
only thing that makes logical sense.You know, after blue Rock Springs,
Zodiac drives away. It takes tenminutes to get the phone booth. If
he's going to make a call onhis way out of town, he's going

(01:41:57):
to stop at that phone booth,make his car, and drive on out
of down. The fact that thecall came forty minutes later, there's a
missing thirty minutes. It makes nological sense that Zodiac's gonna putter around,
hang around, you know, riskbeing seen, have a murder weapon in
his car, possibly blood on hisclothes. He's just going to spend all
this time hanging out waiting to makethis call and then leave town. It

(01:42:20):
makes sense to me that he wenthome, he stashed his guns, he
washed up, he parked his car, and walked back to that phone booth
to make that call. Those arethe That's the most logical reasoning that can
explain that that missing thirty minutes tome, because you know, risking hanging

(01:42:40):
up with the gun, with theclothes, with the car, it doesn't
make sense. He also Zodiac alsowas hell bent on selling this idea of
a black man witnessing his car,describing and a witness saw me at this
pay phone. He's trying to sellthe idea that there was this mystery witness
out that saw him in a car, Meanwhile, I think it's the complete

(01:43:01):
opposite. I think he wanted policeto believe he was in a car and
not on foot. He's over sawingit, in my opinion, and the
age of these of the Negro mailadults he's selling the witness that said my
car was brown? Was this Negromail? And now that to me is

(01:43:23):
a ruse that he's trying to say, Okay, look over here, but
not over here, look over hereat someone driving away from a theme and
not over towards my house where Ijust walked from. So again, time
will tell if if I've proven rightthat's Mac, or if someone else has
proven to be Zodiec and they livedclose to that phone booth. I guess
we'll find out, but I hopeone or another we do find out who

(01:43:45):
Zodec was. None of that storywould have been necessary if he'd made the
phone call ten minutes after the murder, which I suspect is what he wanted
to do originally. It makes moresense if he lived in San Francisco or
Napa and sent says, make thephone call at Oakland or Berkeley or any
place a place don't hang around.I've heard people say maybe he left and

(01:44:09):
went for something to eat, andmaybe he just sat in his car writing
the script and getting his confidence up. But we know that the description of
the brown car was given up almostimmediately, So it's foolish. He can't
guarantee he's killed both suspects, andhe doesn't want to be hanging around in
that car just three miles away.And like I've said many a time,

(01:44:30):
those two bullet casings on the backfloorboard. When you consider Michael majo was
shot in the neck, jaw areaand the shoulder, which is at the
top of the seat, and bothof those bullets went in and out of
him and into Dari and Fern,and she was struck twice independently. That's
at least eight wounds. There wouldhave been blood on the top of that

(01:44:51):
car seat, that passenger seat,and to strike Majau in the thigh,
he would have had to lean intothat car over that passenger seat. I
think it's almost inevitably it got bloodoff the back of that seat onto his
clothing, and this probably changed histactics that night. I think it's fair
to say, isn't it. Yeah, I mean, there's there's a real

(01:45:14):
possibility that there was blood spatter onthat Zodia. Yeah, and you could
have come into contact with it,and there could be someone in this clothing.
The key thing again, and it'sjust a theory may be proven wrong.
It's the most logical thing, though, is you're not going to want
to hang out in a car thatyou just used to murder someone with a

(01:45:35):
gun that is the murder weapon andblood on your clothes. It just doesn't
make logical sense. So to hangout and say, all right, I'm
going to hang out this phone booth. You're hanging out this phone booth at
one o'clock making it, waiting tomake this phone call in the middle of
the night, there's no one around. What happens when a police car stops
by and says, why are youhanging out here? All of a sudden,

(01:45:56):
you've got police attention on you andyou're just hanging out this phone.
Then they see the blood, thenthey want to search you, Then they
find a gun. It doesn't makesense. So if Zodiac lived in San
Francisco, Napa, any Oakland wherever, he could have drove out, made
that call ten minutes later and justheaded on home. The fact that he's
there forty minutes later is very tellingto me, and it's because I think

(01:46:20):
he lived there in a walking distancefrom there. So again we'll find out
if I'm right, hopefully when whenthe Zodiac cas is solved. So hypothetically,
forget about the Zodiaks being sold fornow. If Mac somehow was totally
ruled out tomorrow, but this imaginaryhe went to Texas stuff or any other
reason for whatever ruled him out tomorrow, would you still stick to the principle

(01:46:45):
of looking for another suspect by thepayphone? I would I still fine?
An answer? Is there someplace inthat area? Now? Again, this
is one another reason I'm high onMac is because if you look in the
area like I've done, and Ichallenge anyone else to go out there and
do this, please develop some suspects. Bring someone forward like Mac, and

(01:47:06):
I'll gladly consider them. But whenyou look at that area at that time
of night, businesses are closed.So the people that are going to be
around are people that live in thatarea, and there's not many of them.
There are very few residences within youknow, say, four hundred five
hundred feet of that phone mooth theirbusinesses and most people did not live in

(01:47:30):
the same place that their business wasMac happened to. So this notion that
there's all kinds of people there thatcould see your neighbor might see you,
and Mac would have been risking itwalking through that phone mooth, it's just
not accurate. I've done the research, I've done the identification of everyone everyone
in those buildings around that location,and there were not a lot of people

(01:47:56):
that would have been there to seeMac walking to that phone booth. So
the notion of all kinds of eyewitnessesbeing there, it just doesn't make sense.
And I challenge anyone to go outdo some research and find someone else.
Find another person that fits the description, has an interest in codes and
ciphers and lives in that walking distance, And if you do, reach out

(01:48:16):
to me, because I'll gladly helpyou, try and research them and see
if we can connect him to beingZodiac. But so far, I've only
found one person that meets all thosethings, and that's Mac. I'm not
a fan of Bartholee Allen, butat least he lived near the payphone,
so that's one good thing going forhim. Yeah, and again we go

(01:48:38):
back to the descriptions. Now theaccounts we do have of Alan of Zodiac
just don't match Allan. But moreimportantly, the physical evidence has rolled him
out. The prints have rolled himout, the DNA and again that we
know the DNA is in question,the old DNA, But the DNA has
ruled him out. The palm printI'm one of the letters, has ruled

(01:49:00):
him out. Physical evidence has ruledArthur Lee Allen out. The only way
that Arthur Lee Allen could still beZodiac is if all the physical evidence that
ruled him out is bogus. Soto me, Alan is just a big
rabbit holeless case that gets a lotof people's attention when he really shouldn't get

(01:49:20):
their attention because at this point,unless all the physical evidence that ruled him
out is inaccurate, he just wasn'tthe Zodiac, just plain and simple.
We'll come to the DNA in aminute after this. Next question by John
Paul Duffy, he asks, doyou think the sloppy handling of Lake Herman

(01:49:41):
Road scared the Zodiac from communicating earlier? Do you want to answer that first?
It would be pure speculation on mypart to say why he didn't communicate
with police sooner. Again, I'mjust thinking of a couple of possibilities.
Perhaps he was out of town.Perhaps he he wasn't in the area.
Perhaps he it wasn't his primary motiveto communicate with them. But maybe as

(01:50:06):
time went on and then he finallydoes a second attack and he wants to
interact with police, he finally startswriting them and making calls after the second
attack. It'd be endless speculations totry and determine why Zodiac didn't reach out
to police. In the newspapers soonerafter Lake Herman wrote, I would say

(01:50:30):
that I don't really think there weresloppy handling at Lake Herman Road. The
police report and they interviewed many people. I thought it was quite thorough.
I would say if there were seriouserrors made, it was primarily at Lake
Barriessa and Presidio Heights by not takingfootprint casts from the man's scene by the
three Pacific Union College girls, andthe errors of the dispatcher and the Negro

(01:50:50):
mail adult all persons, bulletin,all points, bulletin sorry at Presidio Heights.
I tend to think the Benicia andValejo crimes were handled pretty well,
considering the technology available back then.I don't think the Zodiac communicated for six
and a half months because he wasprobably savoring the newspaper reporting I want many

(01:51:13):
consider to be his first murders,so maybe that was the reason. And
as he gained confidence, his crimesgot closer together. Absolutely, And just
to your point two, we talkabout the investigations again, I know that
in the vale, in the firstLake Herman Road attacks, they did go
through and ask witnesses to come backin from multiple statements. So they did

(01:51:38):
drive with James own according to whathe told me, and have him time
out the route. They did lookat everyone's watches and clarks and sync them
up to get an accurate time ofwhose clerks for faster or slow, and
they built this timeline. So Ithink they really did a good job there.
In that case, the Blue RockSprings investigation was quite extensive. Now

(01:52:01):
again you're right, they should haveprobably went back and casted those prints at
Lake Berryessa. You know, ifone print at the crime scenes a ten
and a half wing walker, butthe other boot is a size thirteen,
take whatever kind of shoe you wantfrom the guy that the girls seeing,

(01:52:25):
well that would be pretty conclusive thatit's not the same person, and then
it wouldn't be as important, youknow. I talked to Ken Narlow who
told me that the guy that waswatching the girls chain smoked and had a
lot of cigarette butts outside of hisvehicle's part, and he regretted not picking

(01:52:45):
them up and holding them for evidencebecause they would, unlike you know,
undoubtedly, had they been saved,could provide a lot of DNA, and
he regretted that not doing that.But again, part of the issue with
this case is the time that happenedin nineteen sixty nine, they didn't know
anything about DNA. They didn't havethe forethought to know that something like that

(01:53:06):
could happen. I don't even knowif you could determine someone's blood type from
the cigarette that they smoked back then. So maybe they just thought there was
no value in picking up those cigarettebutts at the time. Based on what
the technology was, we sort ofgo back to if Zodiac did the same
exact crime right now, he wouldnot last very long. He'd be caught

(01:53:30):
fast, especially since we have surveillancecameras and traffic cameras and things like that.
The technology is just so much betternow that someone doing exactly what Zodiac
did back then right now would beidentified very quickly. Do you think if
the bootprints had matched from the areawhere the three girls saw the suspect to

(01:53:53):
the crime scene, we would haveto take their sketch more seriously than the
Presidio hight sketch because it was indaytime for a much more prolonged period,
and that would pour great doubt ontothe Presidio hide sketch. Absolutely. I
mean, if those if that boottrack was a ten and a half wing
walker at that scene where that guywas, then that would undoubtedly mean that

(01:54:19):
it was Zodiac. So we'd haveto Now I don't say we just you
know, take one suspects or onewitness's account over the others. That's what
a lot of people like to doin this case. They'd like to say,
Okay, everything this witness says isto be trusted, and everything this
witness says, you have to throwit out. A lot of people just
dismissed Mike Mijoe's statements in favor ofthe Robbins kids. I get into a

(01:54:42):
lot of this online with some ofthese trolls I interact with that that basically
say you have to completely dismiss Mijoe'saccount. I take every witness's interactions and
what they saw individually and sort ofjust put them all pieces of a puzzle.
They all saw what they saw.They all described, to the best

(01:55:03):
of their abilities what they saw.So to me, I'd take all of
them as an overview of pieces ofa puzzle, and I put weight on
each one. Each one has tobe considered, and I don't just blindly
rule one out because I don't likewhat they said. So if it was
determined that these boot tracks were leftby Zodiac and these girls actually saw him,

(01:55:27):
I would take their account obviously,since there were three of them,
it was daylight, you know,I would take that account very seriously,
and I would also just put itin line with everything else. I wouldn't
dismiss anyone else's. I would justsay, look, everyone, in this
case, it seems Zodiac has describedthings a little bit differently. But I

(01:55:47):
wouldn't just dismiss another account in favorof the girls. For example, and
it was the same distance they spottedthe guy was about forty or fifty feet,
wasn't it somewhere around that? Yeah, But again we go back to
its like it's forty five. There'sthree of them. Yeah, there's three
of them. They're older, sothey're adults. So I think that also

(01:56:10):
comes into play because you know,interpretations of an adult mind versus a teenage
mind. People aren't fully developed whenthey're a teenager, So I think maybe
they're they're recounting of what they sawcould be a little bit more accurate.
But again, I would just putthem on a list of you know,
witnesses saw this, and this istheir story, and then I would just

(01:56:31):
sort of look at all the descriptionsas a whole and say Zodiac was some
kind of combination all of these witnesssightings. Well, we've got the penultimate
question now, and I'll give thisto you because we may disagree on the
first part of this. It says, this is from Jim R. It

(01:56:54):
says, excluding DNA and fingerprints,which are questionable in terms of their legitimate
to see, what is the singlebest piece of evidence that exists today that
will lead to the identification of theZodiac killer. So I suppose that means
in absence of DNA and fingerprints.In absence of DNA or fingerprints, Yeah,

(01:57:15):
what is the best evidence we canhave to lead to the identity of
the Zodiac killer. Well, ifmost people agree, that's probably the only
two things that's I think that isthe only two things that The case is
never going to be solved if it'snot for DNA fingerprints, because it's always
going to be endless speculation. Imean, theoretically, it could be ballistics.

(01:57:36):
Someone could say, this was mygrandfather's gun, and I you know,
he left the confessional letter that hekilled them, and here's his gun.
Do you want to test it?And then they go back and do
ballistics and find out it was themurder weapon. Something like that could happen,
but it's going to take some kindof physical evidence. Whether it's ballistics,
whether it's a fingerprint, whether it'sDNA. The case won't be solved

(01:57:58):
without some kind of physical evidence.I'm fairly confident we've got a full DNA
profile of the seventy eight letter,or at least a partial. But I
agree with Eddie Bash that we havethe Zodiac's fingerprints in the cab. They
may be partial, but that's enoughto rule out people who have fingerprints on
file. What I will say is, if we find Paul Stein's shirtpiece or

(01:58:23):
the keys or wallet in some ofthese belongings, possibly newspaper cuttings in a
scrapbook, something like that. Butwhat I did read a few years ago
was a new technology of identifying proteinmarkers in people, that particularly in hair
samples. And we know there's ahair on the back of the Paul Stein

(01:58:43):
stamp, and it says proteins aremore stable than DNA and more abundant in
hair. So any advancements in scienceother than DNA and fingerprints, such as
this protein marker thing, because manythings are unique to an individual, not
just DNA and fingerprints, So advancementsin science may identify the Zodiac killer that

(01:59:05):
we just haven't dreamt of yet.Well, and we've got to be careful
too, because even something like that, using it from underneath a stamp,
which could be anyone's that came youknow, that was in the mail system,
that could be anyone's hair that wasunder there. So I'm a firm
believer, as I think you are, that we should try and identify every

(01:59:29):
person connected to every piece of evidenceand put them on a big list and
one by one rule them out ofZodiac. If someone hoaps the letter of
nineteen seventy eight identify that person andthen go down and check off the list
and see if they really were thezodiac or if you can rule them out,
exclude them. But I think oneway another, they should be identifying
all of the people that all theevidence leads them to. In this case,

(01:59:54):
I think it's going to come downto, again, physical evidence of
some sort. It's not going tobe a confession, it's not. It's
going to take some kind of physicalevidence. You know, finding a box
of newspaper clippings, you know,finding confession letters not going to be enough
unless you know, if a confessionletter contain some crazy detail that police have

(02:00:16):
held back and only the killer wouldknow, they might be satisfied with that.
But I don't even think that wouldsatisfy them. I think they would
still want physical evidence. I knowand everyone I've talked to behind the scenes
in this case, they want physicalevidence. And the best place that I
think it's going to come from thatI think is ultimately going to solve this

(02:00:36):
case is from the letters that hesent from under the envelope seals. I
think that's what's going to be whatsolves this case. And I'm just throwing
out a theory that what's taking solong is that they have a mixed DNA
profile. It's ZODIAX mixed with someoneelse's DNA, and when you have that

(02:00:58):
mixture, it's hard to do thegenealogy that solves these cases. That doesn't
mean it can't be done at somepoint. Technology advances in DNA every couple
of years, and they maybe willto extract more easily the Zodiac DNA and
identify it using the genealogy that we'reseeing solve so many cases. So I

(02:01:19):
think we still need to be patient. But that's my best explanation of why
it's taking so long to do genealogyin the Zodiac case. Of course,
we also have to consider that thestorage of the letters degrades the DNA,
so that could be an issue they'rerunning into. Years ago, they did

(02:01:40):
some testing on the clothesline that Zodiacused at Lake Burriessa. I forget how
many years ago, but I'm goingto guess at this point time fly that
it must have been at least whatseven, eight, nine, ten years
ago. Now it's been quite awhile. They should retest that same clothesline
because things that were availed Elbow backthen are nine and day different from what

(02:02:02):
that technology is now. If ifanyone's listening out in that accounty, please
go back and retest that evidence,because what you did years and years ago,
there's so much new advancement of technologysince then. There's a system called
m vac that you can use toextract DNA from a lot of different materials.
It's almost like a wet vacuum thatyou soak up everything, you spray

(02:02:26):
a solution on it, and thenvacuum it all up, and whatever it
vacuums up, it will tell youwhose DNA is in there. You can
basically go back and use that DNAthat it collects and identify it using genealogy
sometimes. So I think they needto take a fresh look at all the
evidence in this case, all theletters, using the latest technology, and

(02:02:47):
if worst case scenario like I'm sayingis true and there is a mixture of
DNA profiles, it may take longerto do, but I think eventually they
may be able to still use thegenealogy. And like you've said many a
time, even if you don't thinkit's a Zodiac letter, at least test
it because if it comes back tomac or Arthur, Lee, Alan or

(02:03:09):
whoever, or someone who was residentin the valet Hoo area or for that
matter, San Francisco. It's goingto be a pertinent finding and may change
people's opinions on whether that letter wasa fake in the first place. So
now I made a mistake here,there's two questions left. Fornzy Crime said,

(02:03:30):
do you think Sherry Joe Bates wasa Zodiac victim? No? No,
I think we both agree. I'llelaborate on it a little bit in
the fact that I once believed shewas a Zodiac victim more than not,
But in recent years I would giveprobably less than a one percent chance her

(02:03:50):
murder was perpetrated by the Zodiac.I would say this, a man who
went out of his way to tiehimself to four canonical attacks has provided nothing
in the Bates case other than thebelated inferences of riverside activity. I wouldn't
rule her out on MO. We'vehad this discussion in recent podcasts. I

(02:04:11):
wouldn't rule her out on MO becausethere is a first time for everything,
and saying didn't kill loan females,never sexually molested anybody, never killed anybody
in a house, and never abductedanybody doesn't cut it for me anymore,
because there's a first time for everything, and I'll pointed that out before.
In fact, his first ever murderswould have been another example. So I

(02:04:34):
think they're both in agreement that Idon't know what percentage you give of this
being Zodiac, but I think it'salmost non existent at this point. Well,
I'm the same way I used tobeat on the fence whether she was
a Zodiac victim. But I always, for a long time, got hung
up on those letters being from Zodiac. But then we found out that,

(02:05:00):
Okay, this article about the Batescase, with photos, the complete letter
content, the misspellings was all ina detective magazine, available for Zodiac to
read and see and duplicate later on. And I know that's possible now,
so I didn't need that link toRiverside. And then then we had the

(02:05:20):
whole fiasco with one of the lettersthat was confirmed to be written by Zodiac.
All of a sudden, somebody comesforward and says that they wrote the
letter, and police are satisfied withthat, which furthermore strengthen the case.
It wasn't Zodiac. There's no doubtthat Phil Sins, who was the first
person to ever link the Bates caseto Zodiac. He did that because it's

(02:05:45):
you know, it sounded the mO sounded the same. So I don't
fault him forever doing that and puttingit on the Raider in their first place.
But how Zodiac probably learned about that, I'm now thinking is through that
that magazine. And then to havethe failure if that writing is in question
now is not being legitimately from Zodiac. You know that just weakens the case

(02:06:06):
said it was him, but thatthat whole m of tawning the police sending
letters and everything that was very muchlike Zodiac, And so I can't fault
the case forever being linked in thefirst place. But to this day,
there's no evidence that links the Batescase to Zodiac that we were aware of.
So, you know, if therewas some kind of DNA link,

(02:06:29):
some kind of fingerprint link, somethingsolid that said, okay, these are
the same person, I'd say verymuch that Zodiac could have been down there,
could have killed her, could haveat the very least written letters,
But we don't have a physical match. Now what I'd like to see them
do And this is sort of asidefrom the Zodiac case I'd like to see

(02:06:51):
them solve Sherry's case, whether it'sZodiac or not, because I think it's
very solvable. They've had blinders onfor fifty something years, and it's it's
it's ludicrous they have They're so hungup on this guy that's known as Bob
Burnett that they've really stuck to himand not been open to anything else.

(02:07:14):
Meanwhile, they're cigarette butts. There'sa piece of physical evidence that's a hair
with blood clot in Sherry's hand.These are things that they should be using
to do genealogy to get a profilefor the actual killer. That. Yeah,
they claim they can only get Margecondro, don't they. Yeah, But
again we go back to some ofthe stuff they can do now they couldn't

(02:07:36):
do just five years ago. SoI don't know, they're very tight lipped
about what they're doing, what they'renot doing, but things they couldn't do
back in you know, five yearsago, they may be able to do
now. I'm shocked, shocked thatSherry's case isn't solved. To me,
it's it's whether it's Zodiac or not, her case should be solved, and

(02:07:58):
I'm just shocked, And I thinkthey've had blinders on this whole time,
and I hope that somehow, someway they see the light and say,
let's stop chasing this one person,Let's do genealogy. Then let the path
go, work goes instead of tryingto lock in on Bob Burnett. Here's
something to ponder that are brought upin a previous podcast. Is it fair

(02:08:22):
to say that not everybody is convincedthat the thirteen Whole postcard is Zodiac?
Yeah, I think there's I thinkthere's a lot of speculation. I mean
there's there's people that still think thatthe Lake Barrius attack wasn't Zodiac, or
that the Halloween card to Avery wasn'tZodiac, or there's always going to be
speculation and theory and disagreements on theories. I think that's just something'unged to

(02:08:46):
have to live with in this caseuntil it's sortas. The reason I bringing
that up is because if you don'tbelieve the thirteen Whole postcard was the Zodiac
Killer, but you believe the Halloweencard was, as most people do,
we're all fairly convinced that the LittleList letter was the Zodiac Killer. So
he releases the Little List Letter.It wasn't published immediately, but he sent

(02:09:09):
the little list letter and in ithe goes twitch and squerm and scream and
all that which we know he's linkedto the confession letter. Then if the
thirteen old postcard wasn't his next communication, his next communication was the Halloween card,
the first time he ever signs offwith a Z. Therefore he uses
twitch and squerm from the confession letter, and then he uses a Z from

(02:09:33):
the Bates letters. If indeed thatis a Z in two consecutive communications just
before the crime is connected with PaulAvery, although he wasn't the first to
present it in the newspapers. Thatis a bit of an uncanny coincidence,
isn't it? Yeah, I'd sayso. So. Final question from Nicholas
Bolton. He says, though youdidn't discuss it at length on the podcast,

(02:10:00):
I'd like to know if for yourlast episode you'd be comfortable giving listeners
your thoughts on zodiac, psychological makeup, or what his motivations might have been.
Well, so interesting. As Imentioned earlier, I plan on releasing
some kind of episode about mac Here, So stay subscribe to this podcast,

(02:10:22):
and in that I hope to haveon Doctor Lee Miller, who's a co
host of mine on my other show, Citizen Detective. He's a criminologist who
has done a profile on Zodiac,and you know later on he did go
back and compare my suspect to himto that. So this is a trained

(02:10:46):
professional opinion which I hope to haveon and I think listeners will find it
interesting, whether you know it's relatedto Mac or not, just having a
professional's opinion. I also plan tohope have on a someone that's a profiler
who has done work on the Zodiaccase. So again stay tuned and will

(02:11:07):
hopefully have that stuff on. Butas for my untrained opinion, again,
I'm not a professional. I'm justsomeone with a theory like everyone else,
So you know, take that forwhat it is. I don't think Zodiac
was a two man team. Idon't think it was mk ultro. I
don't think he was in some kindof cold I don't think all these crazy

(02:11:31):
things that people throw out there.I think this was a guy that was
lonely, that was jealous of couplesthat had intimate relations that he couldn't have.
He wasn't successful with the opposite sex, and he grew to despise that
and felt left out, felt angered, whatever the reason may be. And

(02:11:54):
I think, you know, becausehe had these homicidal tendantes, he acted
out and took that out by findingrandom couples that were engaged in the activities
that he wanted to be engaged andhe wasn't able to. And I think
that's how he came to first wantto do the attacks and carry them out.

(02:12:16):
And then eventually I think he,you know, got some satisfaction out
of the attention that it got him, and then you see the shift from
the murder stopping. But then forfive years later he's still communicating with the
police in the newspapers because I thinkultimately that is what gave him the satisfaction.

(02:12:37):
And I think that's who Zodiac was. And I think that at some
point there were some life changes forhim that part of him grew burned out.
A lot of times homicidal tendencies aspeople get older, do they do
end, they do phase out,and that may have been what happened with

(02:12:58):
him. But also life events,getting married, having kids, things like
that could certainly be a life changingevent that sort of puts a new chapter
in his life. And sometimes thesekillers are able to stop, they are
able to go on the other things, There's this theory out there that serial

(02:13:20):
killers never ever stop until they're apart and it's just not correct. I
agree for the most part. Yes, I'm glad you brought up Lee Meller,
because I want you to bring upI would bring up Richard Walter,
who Miradelli brought up for his book, who gave a profile of a power
assertive killer, and he uses thatto propel his case for Shelkavali. Now,

(02:13:43):
what I would say is attempting tobuild a psychological profile of the killer
is obviously a very dangerous thing.I probably agree with Ray Grant. So
at the very least, you wouldhave to sit down and talk to the
killer over many days, and eventhen are reliant on that killer who is
capable of playing mind games. Iwould go as I agree with you in

(02:14:05):
the sense that the killer was anarcissistic braggart lacking empathy, who only committed
the attacks to achieve the publicity.I think that the murders themselves were incidental
to the attack itself. He justwanted to do an attack to gain the
publicity. Now, several victims werealive, when he left the scenes.

(02:14:26):
So I don't believe the murderer washis primary motivation, just the letter writing.
And this is where we go backto you talking about Lee Meller.
Ask a hundred profilers and you willget many varied profiles of the killer.
A parson with a suspect which ispertinent to you, and Mike in a
way, will choose the profiler whogives the best representation of the killer that

(02:14:52):
matches their suspect. Is that fairto say, because you've got ample profilers
out there. But if you're goingto if you are going to write a
book like Mike Rideli, you aregoing to choose a profiler that conforms to
what you believe your suspect is.You're not going to choose a profiler who
says the complete opposite to what ShellCavali is. So isn't selecting a profiler
to back up your claims a weakargument? Now, well, here's the

(02:15:16):
thing. I think you hit thenail on the head. If you're selling
a book, you're not going toYou're not going to bring someone on that
completely shatters your your theory or yourthinking. That's let's put that right out
there to begin with you know,in my case, it happened to be
that before I ever, you know, told Lee Meller about Mac, he

(02:15:37):
had done a done this profile independentof me. I had nothing to do
with this profile. And when hestarted talking about this profile and I listened
to it, I said, well, this sort of matches Lee. So
on his show I went back andwe talked and I said, listen,
I want to run this suspect byyou and see how he fits into your

(02:15:58):
profile. And it just so happenedthat he did. In a lot of
ways, profiles, psychological profiles,geological profiles, they're not evidence. There
are just tools in the tool shedthat we can use to to sort of
help us maybe understand to get differentideas. They're never they're they're not like

(02:16:20):
physical evidence. So they're just opinions, their theories, based on training,
based on previous cases, based ondata. But at the end of the
day, it comes down to solidpolice work and physical evidence, and that's
what I think it's ultimately going totake in this case to solve It is
going to be some kind of physicalevidence that solves a case. Then we

(02:16:45):
can go back and reverse engineer andsee how Zodiac fits into these various profiles
and where he lived and things likethat. Yeah, I've listened to his
podcasts the other day again just tomake myself aware of what he was saying.
So it was Yeah, again,it's just having people on that that
can share their opinions based on theirtraining, based on their expertise. It's

(02:17:07):
always good to listen to that andtaking some points that they make. But
at the end of the day,it's just a tool in the tool shed.
It's just an opinion. It's goingto come down to physical evidence,
and I hope that there is physicalevidence that solves this case. Well that's
the finale then, Mike. Yeah, it's been really good doing this,

(02:17:28):
and I appreciate everyone coming in andsending their questions and taking the time.
Had a lot of people tell usthat the podcast is great. I'm also
fascinated by the people that legitimately hateme and troll me on a ruggar basis
that listen to the show. Butagain two D and and some of the
others, I thank you for listening. It's it's it's definitely been interesting.

(02:17:52):
And again I want people to knowthat we're not saying this is the last
episode forever. We may do somethingdown the road if there's more to talk
about, if there's new ideas wecome up with, obviously breaks in the
case news in the case, we'dcome back into an episode. And I'm
definitely going to be releasing some somethingon Mac in the near future. So
don't unsubscribe from the podcast. Theysubscribe so you find out what we're doing.

(02:18:18):
Yes, it's been a great workingwith you for the last eighteen months.
In fact, I was wrong lasttime when I said fifteen months.
It's been eighteen months. So it'sbeen a good journey and I hope we've
added some new information that people didn'tknow before because we've tried to push the
boundaries a little bit. And asyou said, we're not going to draw
a line under the podcast. We'regoing to put it into hibernation until some

(02:18:39):
new material comes along and then wewill possibly reinvigorate it for a few more
episodes. Yeah, and I'm surepeople can still contact us too if they
have ideas for things they'd like tohear about in the future. Maybe they'll
give us some other stuff that can'ttemplate on doing episode about fantastic. Thanks
for listening, Yeah, and thankyou Rich You've been a great partner in

(02:19:01):
this. Yeah, Sony and Mike. It's been a good, good trip.
Yeah, great experience. Thanks forjoining us for this episode of Zodiac
Speaking. Please make sure you're subscribedto the show wherever you're listening now so
you don't miss a single episode.If you want to follow or interact with
us on social media, we'd loveto hear from you. You can find
Zodiac Speaking on Twitter with a handleat podcast Zodiac, where you can search

(02:19:26):
Facebook for Zodiac Speaking podcast and don'tforget. You can get plenty of Zodiac
details twenty four seven by visiting mysite at zodiacsipas dot com or by going
to mic site at Zodiac Killer dotnet. If you'd like to help more
people find Zodiac Speaking, please takea moment to rate the show and leave

(02:19:48):
a review of it on your favoritepodcast player or app. On behalf of
Rich, This is Mike Morford andi'd like to say thanks again for listening,
and we'll see you on the nextepisode of Zodiac Speaking.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Herd with Colin Cowherd

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Zodiac Speaking Q&A

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Herd with Colin Cowherd

All Episodes

Zodiac Speaking Q&A

Stuff You Should Know