Would they have figured out he was the zodiac?

[Menecrates Profile]

If the Zodiac took souveniers, he's clearly a necrophiliac.

Run that by me again. Why isn't he just manipulating the body to collect souveniers? And when have souvenir killers been shown to be necrophiliacs at all times? BTW, where's the act that makes him a necrophiliac?

Winter, please don't start unjustified ideas unless you have something. They tend to turn into myths.

[Gavrilo Princip Profile]

And that might be the reason he used different weapons for each crime. If he was caught, the weapon he used for the current crime would not be linked to any prior known Z crimes and there'd be no reason to suspect he was Z.

I don't get it though. I suppose if he's caught walking the streets with a firearm he shouldn't be carrying that'd be one thing. Carrying a concealed weapon is a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions...but after the crime? Who cares? Especially Zodiac, where (with the exception of the last crime) he tried to kill 2 people at each crime scene. He's going to get life+ in each of those situations. In most situations (with the exception of Lake Berryessa) his prospects for being accosted prior to actually killing (or attempting to kill) his victims was exceedingly small...and in that case he had a damn Zodiac symbol sewn onto his hood...so I'm not sure he was worried about possibly being identified prior to the crime. If a cop stopped him with that getup in the car, a knife, gun and some lengths of rope, he's doomed anyway....and Lake Berryessa was his highest risk crime, and the only time Zodiac was driving around in daylight prior to committing a murder.

So...I don't get it. I think it tells us more about him that he used a different gun each time. You can really narrow a suspects list down by people who own multiple handguns. Sure there were not necessarily records, but friends and relatives often know if someone has a bunch of handguns.

Damn thing doesn't make any sense.

[Gavrilo Princip Profile]

Atleast I'm not acting like I'm the all knowing, man with a crystal ball who can tell the future. Why do I use those terms??? Because all of those things ARE POSSIBLE!!! I mean if you are going to get this aggravated in a debate on a message forum, I think maybe you should check yourself in for some mental health problems bub.

First of all, you don't know me, and, frankly, you're being very defensive about your "theory". I think you are incorrect. Learn to live with it. I am not angry, come on over to Bystander sometime and see the insanity and ridiculousness I deal with on a daily basis, this is child's play. I do not understand why you're so defensive about it though. This isn't kindergarten, if your theory sucks, I'm not going to pat you on the back and say good job. Nor will I (provided I am extended the same courtesy) imply you have mental health problems, are an idiot, or otherwise. Be guided accordingly. There are plenty of people who legitimately have mental health problems that have an obsession with this case, if you're interested I can show you what real mental health problems are.

Please do not deign to interpret my attitude through a computer screen. You'll know it when I get pissed. Check your PMs and see.

Again you are talking about the zodiac who likes to play mind games. Of course it is likely to say that he intended for it to look like a cab robbery gone bad. Or that he had planned to take those things for future clothes. Could go either way, which is where the possibilities comes from. And souvenir comes from the french word to take a memento, or keep sake. We DON'T KNOW if he EVER intended to keep them for FUTURE CLUES ONLY, or if he wanted them for a personal reasoning. Therefore you don't know if they were souvenirs or not. I don't know why your arguing, when it is a very plausible theory. In which case is why he could have taken the wallet you know? And I'm not being obtuse, I'm being a right angle Again there is reasons as to why to take them without needing to be reminded of the crimes.

So, he takes a piece of shirt, wallet, keys and maybe the glasses...all as future "proof of culpability" and with no intent to use them to relive his crime? I think that highly unlikely. He's got enough shirt to cut up a dozen times if necessary. Again, we're theorizing here, so can it be definitively shown that he didn't take these items to relive his crimes? No. But Occam's Razor says he did. He took far more than he needed to prove culpability for a long, long time.

I know killing someone is very likely to lead to a life sentence. But do you know that it is more likely for one to get the death penality with more murder counts? If zodiac was afraid of death himself, he could have likely decided he would took a life sentence instead of death. Something we don't know. And that's what the negative repercussions of firing on a police officer.

Murder in the commission of a felony is called felony murder, it is prosecuted as first degree murder in almost all jurisdictions. In jurisdictions in the USA that permit the death penalty, it is punishable by death. Yes, if you have certain aggravating circumstances (including multiple murders) your prospects for getting the death penalty are greater. But shooting a cabbie in the head while robbing the cab is heinous enough to justify the death penalty, and I believe Zodiac would have known that, and you can bet your ass the DA would be looking for that. So...cosi cosa, you're looking at life if you're lucky...or try to make an escape. I believe he shoots. I think I've made my point.

My "talking your way out of it" was meant if he was only questioned, if he saw someone the description or what not. He wouldn't have instantly gone for a shootout in that case. In my opinion he would have only done it had they gotten out of the police car.

I think what I was getting at is he would be saturated in blood. I don't think he would have survived even a cursory stop without arousing suspicion, even at night. But that (like everything else in this thread) is debatable

Have you ever seen some crime scene's where theres a field of bullits on the ground? He would have had 8 or 13 or 14 bullits left. Not that many if he planned to actually have a fire fight with a bunch of cops. And truthfully the only way I see him actually getting a shot off is if he instantly shot at them when they were in the car. Had he waited for them to open the car doors he would have shot the officer closet to him while the officer on the other side would have possibly gotten behind the other side of the car where he a gun shootout could have occured, and he could have waisted the little bit of ammo he left while standing his ground, or running while firing shots to keep the other officer at bay. Which could have resulted in him easily getting caught not knowing the terrain.

You lost me here. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I think if he did fire it would be an intent to delay, rather than kill, and he would try to escape. I don't know why you think he didn't know the terrain...he seemed to know it pretty good that night.

I will respond to this in a PM. Again with your anger. haha

I don't know where you're getting "anger" from. I will not attempt to prognosticate either.

Well there is a reason why to ask so many different angles, in cases you don't know that have real reasonings that have actually occured in past crime scenes. It's a lot better then pretending like I am somone with a 140 IQ, and is all knowing, and has a crystal ball to tell the future, saying I KNOW THIS, I KNOW WHY, I KNOW WILL HAPPEN LIKE THAT. haha When you don't know. Nor does anyone else know what would happen. Every thing is a possible if, When people still don't know even how the murder absolutely occured. I mean this whole thread is a "What If?" full of theories. Including yours even if you think you know. And I won't deny that yours are also possible. My responses also are not a timeline of how it would happen, but on the different situtations if they had occured. Though one certainly could take it as a timeline. Because if he did confess he certainly would have known that there was a higher chance of a death penality that was availble at the time in California vs a life in prison. What would you choose? Death penality or jail time???

I'm glad you're not denying reality. But what I am confident enough saying, without hesitation, despite your protestation I know Zodiac took souvenirs. Your alternate explanation, nonwithstanding its possible truth, does not dismiss the fact that he took things from the crime scene. He didn't have to do that. He could have told the police the brand of the ammo, or where he was picked up by the cab. He had done that before (after BRS). So there had to be more to it than just "proof of culpability", especially considering to retrieve them Zodiac had to literally cover himself in blood. And having them was just such a bad idea, legally speaking.

[Texter Profile]

First of all, you don't know me, and, frankly, you're being very defensive about your "theory". I think you are incorrect. Learn to live with it. I am not angry, come on over to Bystander sometime and see the insanity and ridiculousness I deal with on a daily basis, this is child's play. I do not understand why you're so defensive about it though. This isn't kindergarten, if your theory sucks, I'm not going to pat you on the back and say good job. Nor will I (provided I am extended the same courtesy) imply you have mental health problems, are an idiot, or otherwise. Be guided accordingly. There are plenty of people who legitimately have mental health problems that have an obsession with this case, if you're interested I can show you what real mental health problems are.

Please do not deign to interpret my attitude through a computer screen. You'll know it when I get pissed. Check your PMs and see.

Me BEING DEFENSIVE??? Last time I checked I wasn't the one condeming other peoples opinions, and looking down on other people, because they use possibles, maybes, and what if's. The same things you use. Of COURSE I am going to be defensive when people get personal, instead of dealing with the topic. I don't think it takes much to see what type of a person you really are from reading your posts. The "mr. know it all", who refuses to take anything anybody else has to say, with respect. I'm not the only one you have done this to on this forum as well. And frankly you should be the last person telling people not to assume things when you did it in your previous post. And then when someone throws it right back in your face you go all mental. I was just showing what you look like on the forum. I think you are also incorrect in many of your theories, but I don't codemn you for even how stupid they maybe, such as your whole wallet argument or 12 hour shift. So you can say if provided the same courtesy all you want, because you know who showed the lack of courtesy, and started the idiocy? You did, would you like me to point them out to you so you can see your social flaws, since you can't see them yourself? If I am not given respect I am not going to give it back, so show me respect, and I will show it.

I think anyone who codemns and mocks other people, and calls people stupid are mentally nuts. All of which you have done to me, because you simply don't agree with my opinion, even after I had showed you nothing but respect. And if you don't like it, my suggestion is to take your own advice, and "learn to live with it" and let it pass. Otherwise we will go continue a circle, and we will both look bad. Which we both look like now.

So, he takes a piece of shirt, wallet, keys and maybe the glasses...all as future "proof of culpability" and with no intent to use them to relive his crime? I think that highly unlikely. He's got enough shirt to cut up a dozen times if necessary. Again, we're theorizing here, so can it be definitively shown that he didn't take these items to relive his crimes? No. But Occam's Razor says he did. He took far more than he needed to prove culpability for a long, long time.

How is that highly unlikely? He may have been in the cab and couldn't decide on what to use as future clues or for his letter? Again there is nothing to either prove your point or disprove it. And if you look at it in this situtation you will see why.

Cut a peice of cloth to wipe down prints. Took the wallett to further prove to the investigators it was a robbery gone bad. Took the car key by accident to reduce sound. Took the glasses if he didn't already wear glasses as a way to disguise himself.

Murder in the commission of a felony is called felony murder, it is prosecuted as first degree murder in almost all jurisdictions. In jurisdictions in the USA that permit the death penalty, it is punishable by death. Yes, if you have certain aggravating circumstances (including multiple murders) your prospects for getting the death penalty are greater. But shooting a cabbie in the head while robbing the cab is heinous enough to justify the death penalty, and I believe Zodiac would have known that, and you can bet your ass the DA would be looking for that. So...cosi cosa, you're looking at life if you're lucky...or try to make an escape. I believe he shoots. I think I've made my point.

Again it "permits" death penalty, it doesn't "automatically" equal "death penalty". Look at the amount of murders and see how many people were convicted and sented to the death penalty. Nor does it make your point any more plausible then mine, as I have given my examples already. Both are equal. Again unless he shoots while they are getting out of the cab, as I doubt he would instantly risk jail time, and getting lost trying to get out of the situtation he is in, where he could easily wait to see if they just ask him if they saw anyone, or whatnot. Because once he would try to shoot, or grab his gun it could have been over for him.

I think what I was getting at is he would be saturated in blood. I don't think he would have survived even a cursory stop without arousing suspicion, even at night. But that (like everything else in this thread) is debatable.

I don't know the details of how bloody he was after his encounter with Paul Stine, as I am not really ever interested in the gory details. So I don't know if he had blood on his pants, or shirt, or jacket. But if the Officers indeed saw him that night driving up and there was a ton of blood, and by your theory would have easily seen, then why didn't they stop him at all if it wasn't that hard to see? If it was only on his shirt he could have used the jacket to hide it. Again I don't know much about what zodiac looked like going home.

You lost me here. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I think if he did fire it would be an intent to delay, rather than kill, and he would try to escape. I don't know why you think he didn't know the terrain...he seemed to know it pretty good that night.

What I am trying to say is that if the zodiac planned to kill the cops. he could have easily ran out during a shootout, or even using them as a delay mechanism. Why do I think he would get lost? Because with a Officer running after you, and you firing at him, and trying to keep your wits ins where you are at, in the dark without getting stuck at a road block would be very hard in my opinion. Especially when the amount of large shots would have had the neighbors turning on all the lights and watching where he was going. I don't know the streets there, if they are row houses, or have a lot of high fences, femces or what not which could have easily stopped him in his tracks. The whole thing could have spoiled his plans to get back to his car. A escape with one Officer on the run after you imagining atleast one survived would have been a MAJOR mistake. If you were going to do something it certainly would have been to murder the cops instead of trying to flee. Or to make it to the woods that were close by. He may have just staked out the area, and known the roads. The difficulty becomes when he trys going through peoples yards, which usually ends in a prisoner being caught.

I don't know where you're getting "anger" from. I will not attempt to prognosticate either.

Again with the "maybes" and "it's possible"..

I'm glad you're not denying reality. But what I am confident enough saying, without hesitation, despite your protestation I know Zodiac took souvenirs.

That's the thing it's still a opinion and a theory unless you have proof from the zodiac otherwise. It is no more reality then mine is. And if you can't take me going after you on this point I would suggest dropping it, because I am going to comeback every single time. That's the problem I have with you when you get on your high horse, and think you are a mr. know it all. Is it possible he took them for souvenirs? Yes. Is it possible he took them for clues/finger prints, by accident/ or a disguise? Certainly it is no different from a reality then yours. The difference between me and you is that I am not going to close my eyes and listen to onlly one opinion.

Your alternate explanation, nonwithstanding its possible truth, does not dismiss the fact that he took things from the crime scene. He didn't have to do that. He could have told the police the brand of the ammo, or where he was picked up by the cab. He had done that before (after BRS). So there had to be more to it than just "proof of culpability", especially considering to retrieve them Zodiac had to literally cover himself in blood. And having them was just such a bad idea, legally speaking.

Yes he took things from a crime scene, but your theory just as mine doesn't dismiss one theory or the other. And I never said otherwise. At one point he decided to take atleast one thing for a possible clue, which could have ended up a lot more. But legally speaking it would have been a bad idea period to even go after anything but the wallet, or the peice of Paul Stine Shirt if he indeed decided to use it as a clue or to wipe the prints. Who knows, zodiac may have at that point been a man who wanted to get caught, and have it over with. Or maybe he wanted those items so bad for future clues, or souvenirs he decided to keep them.[/quote]

[Gavrilo Princip Profile]

I think anyone who codemns and mocks other people, and calls people stupid are mentally nuts. All of which you have done to me, because you simply don't agree with my opinion, even after I had showed you nothing but respect. And if you don't like it, my suggestion is to take your own advice, and "learn to live with it" and let it pass. Otherwise we will go continue a circle, and we will both look bad. Which we both look like now.

I defy you to find one instance wherein I called you stupid, or mocked you personally. I don't have any idea why you're so defensive about this. It's a message board. People disagree. I disagree with you, completely, that Zodiac would have taken the time and effort to recover the material he did simply to acquire "proof of culpability". I think your conclusions are flawed. Instead of trying to explain them you've turned your attacks on me personally. That has nothing to do with the topic, and is a waste of everyone's time who reads the forums.

Cut a peice of cloth to wipe down prints. Took the wallett to further prove to the investigators it was a robbery gone bad. Took the car key by accident to reduce sound. Took the glasses if he didn't already wear glasses as a way to disguise himself.

Possibly, dangerous to wear foreign glasses at night while trying to flee the police. Having many years experience working with eyeglasses, wearing the wrong script could lead to tripping, looking like you're intoxicated, nausea, among other problems. Maybe Z was able to pull it off, I do not know.

Again it "permits" death penalty, it doesn't "automatically" equal "death penalty".

Nothing automatically equals the death penalty. The current known record holder is Gary Ridgeway, the Green River Killer, sitting in a Washington jail cell for life for killing likely in excess of 50 women. No death penalty for Gary.

Both are equal.

They are not equal, they are different.

Again unless he shoots while they are getting out of the cab, as I doubt he would instantly risk jail time, and getting lost trying to get out of the situtation he is in, where he could easily wait to see if they just ask him if they saw anyone, or whatnot. Because once he would try to shoot, or grab his gun it could have been over for him.

As I stated before, in the condition he was in (covered in blood), it was "over" for him the moment the police stopped their vehicle to speak with him.

I don't know the details of how bloody he was after his encounter with Paul Stine, as I am not really ever interested in the gory details.

Very bloody, likely covered from his midriff down to his knees, front and back.

But if the Officers indeed saw him that night driving up and there was a ton of blood, and by your theory would have easily seen, then why didn't they stop him at all if it wasn't that hard to see?

That, itself, is a very lively topic of discussion. Apparently Zodiac was wearing dark clothing, but he should have been "shiny" with wet blood all over him. The officer did not report that he noticed it when he saw the individual walking down the street. Plus, he wasn't really looking for a white guy covered in blood, he was looking for an African American covered in blood.

What I am trying to say is that if the zodiac planned to kill the cops. he could have easily ran out during a shootout, or even using them as a delay mechanism. Why do I think he would get lost? Because with a Officer running after you, and you firing at him, and trying to keep your wits ins where you are at, in the dark without getting stuck at a road block would be very hard in my opinion. Especially when the amount of large shots would have had the neighbors turning on all the lights and watching where he was going. I don't know the streets there, if they are row houses, or have a lot of high fences, femces or what not which could have easily stopped him in his tracks.

I agree with some of that. The neighborhood is (or was) mostly high-end homes (if I'm not mistaken, if someone does know, please inform), so there would have been yards and fences. When faced with the possibility of life in prison or possible execution, I think Zodiac would run, and I don't think he would hesitate to shoot the police officers to get away. When there's nothing left to lose, you take those kind of chances, or I believe Zodiac would have.

That's the thing it's still a opinion and a theory unless you have proof from the zodiac otherwise. It is no more reality then mine is. And if you can't take me going after you on this point I would suggest dropping it, because I am going to comeback every single time. That's the problem I have with you when you get on your high horse, and think you are a mr. know it all. Is it possible he took them for souvenirs? Yes. Is it possible he took them for clues/finger prints, by accident/ or a disguise? Certainly it is no different from a reality then yours. The difference between me and you is that I am not going to close my eyes and listen to onlly one opinion.

It is a different reality. Your proposal (like many others on this MB) is not a more likely explanation for the events. In fact they are decidedly less likely. Why take a super-plethora of trinkets from the vehicle, when a simple brand name of ammo would accomplish the same goal. I'm sure the shirt was designed to shock the press (which it did), but everything else? Pointless. No reason. Nothing a few details known only to the police couldn't accomplish.

It's not like this is a bad discussion or you are stupid or anything like that. I do it too. I proposed Zodiac was an avid admirer of Jack the Ripper. No proof, nothing, just deduction based on information known. I just don't think your conclusions are sound (and people didn't think my conclusions regarding JTR were sound either), but I didn't start complaining that people are calling me names.

Yes he took things from a crime scene, but your theory just as mine doesn't dismiss one theory or the other. And I never said otherwise. At one point he decided to take atleast one thing for a possible clue, which could have ended up a lot more. But legally speaking it would have been a bad idea period to even go after anything but the wallet, or the peice of Paul Stine Shirt if he indeed decided to use it as a clue or to wipe the prints. Who knows, zodiac may have at that point been a man who wanted to get caught, and have it over with. Or maybe he wanted those items so bad for future clues, or souvenirs he decided to keep them.

Mostly true. Naturally, I believe my explanation to be more sound because I find it more likely that someone would take souvenirs than multiple objects to prove guilt, when written details of the crime would have been sufficient to prove the Zodiac was culpable.

[Rocket Man Profile]

what annoys me isn't the difference in opinion, but getting so tangled up in things the really don't make that much of a difference.
I mean, even if hypothetically someone could prove zodiac-definitely-took-souveniers what's the big deal!?
I mean, does that make such a huge difference in the "Zodiac persona", zodiac profile, zodiac anything, if he took souveniers or just-in-case proof, uhh...maybe both?
The glasses? maybe his own, I almost vomited when I tried a friends glasses
the wallet? well could it be so impossible to think that he didn't mind the possible cash it could contain?
the keys? maybe he turned off the engine and his prints where all over them

[smithy Profile]

In respect to:

what annoys me isn't the difference in opinion, but getting so tangled up in things the really don't make that much of a difference.

Well that's the nature of the beast, 40 years on. We're expressing opinions here most of the time, and (I hope), doing that without twisting facts too much for the most part. Not much of what is expressed as opinion is likely to make a difference at this juncture. I don't think the Zodiac will be caught through some revelation occuring on a web site, sadly.
Opinions count though!

Here's mine:
Z. Didn't take the wallet and keys from Berryessa, and I think may have later regretted this lack of tangible evidence of his dirty deeds. He certainly took pieces of Paul Stines shirt as proof of his actions, as is later evidenced. I suspect he took the other items for the same reason, probably, or indeed as ghoulish souvenirs. He certainly didn't take the glasses as a disguise to wear when leaving the scene, even if they weren't bloody. Nobody would, it's a ludicrous idea. If he felt he needed a disguise he'd have brought one with him (as in Berryessa). He probably didn't expect to be closely observed and so quickly pursued, and if he subsequently intended to use his gun to get out of trouble with pursuers, is it likely he'd be wearing a pair of someone elses prescription glasses?

To get back to the original question - would they have figured out the fact that he was Zodiac?
Well, they would certainly have held him for a murder charge - no bail - and started matching him against the other civil-disobedience crimes that had been going on, that's for sure. It's pretty certain that they would have then obtained warrants and examined his house and car for evidence - and who knows what they would have found? Enough (I like to think) to "out" him as Zodiac.

[Texter Profile]

I defy you to find one instance wherein I called you stupid, or mocked you personally. I don't have any idea why you're so defensive about this. It's a message board. People disagree. I disagree with you, completely, that Zodiac would have taken the time and effort to recover the material he did simply to acquire "proof of culpability". I think your conclusions are flawed. Instead of trying to explain them you've turned your attacks on me personally. That has nothing to do with the topic, and is a waste of everyone's time who reads the forums.

Ok I will.

quote]I defy you to find one instance wherein I called you stupid, or mocked you personally. I don't have any idea why you're so defensive about this. It's a message board. People disagree. I disagree with you, completely, that Zodiac would have taken the time and effort to recover the material he did simply to acquire "proof of culpability". I think your conclusions are flawed. Instead of trying to explain them you've turned your attacks on me personally. That has nothing to do with the topic, and is a waste of everyone's time who reads the forums.[/quote]

Ok I will.

Could have, maybe, it's possible...that's all I'm hearing from you. It's possible Zodiac walked a block and got into a car and the person seen walking was not involved in the crime at all. It's possible he sprouted wings and flew away.

Stop being obtuse

Again with the "maybes" and "it's possible".

Again why am I being defensive??? Because you mock me, and call me stupid for not agreeing with you. You sure do like to play the victim. I'd spent this whole debate up til that point discussing evidence until you turned it into personal jabs instead of debating which isn't usual for you to say the least from reading replys you have posted on this forum to other members. When you don't agree with them you go right to them instead of discussing the actual topic. I mean what did all those parts in your post HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING? ALL THEY WERE WERE JABS, in which you went on, and on, and on. You may think they are flaws, but all the situtations I have explained on why make just as much since as your flawed explanations such as the working and taking the wallet theory you like to press. Again if you feel like I am waisting your time, doing the same things you are doing, then why are you doing it yourself? Your just going round, and round, and round. Like I said we both look bad, and if you really felt that way, you WOULDN'T have BOTHERED to continue the discussion. But you do anyhow, so it must not... The power is in your hands to stop it at anytime you want.

Why did he bother wasting time cuting off a peice of Paul Stines shirt for evidence? And why didn't he bother to take evidence as souvenirs prior to this crime??? Especially when he would have had LOADS of time prior at several of the other places, which were quite rural in nature?

Possibly, dangerous to wear foreign glasses at night while trying to flee the police. Having many years experience working with eyeglasses, wearing the wrong script could lead to tripping, looking like you're intoxicated, nausea, among other problems. Maybe Z was able to pull it off, I do not know.

It's possible, and don't worry I won't go after you like you do me by typing possible scenarios. But it isn't that dangerious. Especially while only walking. We have no clue if he had trouble walking back to wherever he was as their were no witnesses who saw him. Which means it is still a possible scenario he took them for that reason. Who knows? I can say from trying other peoples glasses, that the only thing that effected me was a slight headache at times. It depends on truely how strong the prescription was.

Nothing automatically equals the death penalty. The current known record holder is Gary Ridgeway, the Green River Killer, sitting in a Washington jail cell for life for killing likely in excess of 50 women. No death penalty for Gary.

See my point. The more known murders means the more likely hood for a death penality. A prime reason why a suspect wouldn't want to confess to other murders.

They are not equal, they are different.

Yes both are equal. We are dealing with opinions of whether or not he would go to the death penality for committing a murder. Unless you think I am wrong, and you know you are right. Which I have heard before.

As I stated before, in the condition he was in (covered in blood), it was "over" for him the moment the police stopped their vehicle to speak with him.

Well if you go by the theory the cops saw him or stopped to talk to him that night while driving by, then if he was so covered in blood why wouldn't they have stopped him there? Also as I said before zodiac's chances of death would definatley go up if he did. If zodiac was afraid of death himself, he likely might have chosen to go in, instead of risk a shootout or what not. No one he went up against had a weapon. He might have been the type which we have seen when a criminal trys to rob the store, and the clerk behind the counter pulls out his or her gun, and the guy goes scrambling out of the door in fear.

Very bloody, likely covered from his midriff down to his knees, front and back.

And if he was that bloody with fresh blood how come they couldn't find a trail to where he was going? From it sliding down onto the surface?

That, itself, is a very lively topic of discussion. Apparently Zodiac was wearing dark clothing, but he should have been "shiny" with wet blood all over him. The officer did not report that he noticed it when he saw the individual walking down the street. Plus, he wasn't really looking for a white guy covered in blood, he was looking for an African American covered in blood.

It really doesn't matter if he was looking for a black guy or a white, or a latino guy, or any race for that matter. If they saw a guy covered in blood, they would certainly stop him. Especially if it went down to his knee's. That's just too big of a red flag. Which in my opinion shows a) he wasn't that covered in blood as people thought or b) they never really saw him (which I find unlikely due to the matches between the kids) or c) they were really lousy cops.

I agree with some of that. The neighborhood is (or was) mostly high-end homes (if I'm not mistaken, if someone does know, please inform), so there would have been yards and fences. When faced with the possibility of life in prison or possible execution, I think Zodiac would run, and I don't think he would hesitate to shoot the police officers to get away. When there's nothing left to lose, you take those kind of chances, or I believe Zodiac would have.

It all depends on the type of person. As we have seen, some people who committ the worst acts EVER! Also fear death over anything, and would rather take a trial or life in jail. Who knows this guy could have been in the prison system for so long, in and out, he would rather take life.

It is a different reality. Your proposal (like many others on this MB) is not a more likely explanation for the events. In fact they are decidedly less likely. Why take a super-plethora of trinkets from the vehicle, when a simple brand name of ammo would accomplish the same goal. I'm sure the shirt was designed to shock the press (which it did), but everything else? Pointless. No reason. Nothing a few details known only to the police couldn't accomplish.

As is yours. I personally find yours to be very unlikely, and really non existant. Such as the working theory, and your gun theory you mentioned in response to Bullit's on how family members would know. Or the car engine.

I never said my post was right, nor did I say yours was wrong. But as you have said in the past. If zodiac really planned for every moment of this crime, why take the extra time to take things as souviners, and risk even more time being caught??? Especially in a urban neighborhood, when anyone at any given time could have looked out the window or seen what was going to happen. When he hadn't done it prior. Not to mention, if the poilice came they would have been able to link those items to him. He may have sent some of those things which we have never found out. Or he did try to figure out a way to send them in letters but found out he couldn't get them to fit in the package. Such as the key, or peices of the glasses. And then tossed them when he couldn't.

It's not like this is a bad discussion or you are stupid or anything like that. I do it too. I proposed Zodiac was an avid admirer of Jack the Ripper. No proof, nothing, just deduction based on information known. I just don't think your conclusions are sound (and people didn't think my conclusions regarding JTR were sound either), but I didn't start complaining that people are calling me names.

Well I never thought my solutions to questions about this situtation were the absolute thoeries. I even have stated that in the past. All I am doing is playing devils advocate to your debunking theories on how they could answer your proposed problems. Remember I didn't start the name calling, it was you.

Mostly true. Naturally, I believe my explanation to be more sound because I find it more likely that someone would take souvenirs than multiple objects to prove guilt, when written details of the crime would have been sufficient to prove the Zodiac was culpable.

Well I find it just as likely that a guy who has never taken souvenirs, to all of sudden start taking things to make sense all the way either. Like I have said it could go either way, and either solution is possible, and that some of the items could have been taken due to finger prints as well. The only big item is the glasses, which one could use the disguise, or for further proof. After all this murder was entirely different the his others and zodiac seemed sure he NEEDED PROOF for his the Authories to believe him after all. For all the Cops knew he could have been taking the murder to further up his count. Much like some believe he did for Cherri.

Well I find it just as likely that a guy who has never taken souvenirs, to all of sudden start taking things to make sense all the way either. Like I have said it could go either way, and either solution is possible, and that some of the items could have been taken due to finger prints as well. The only big item is the glasses, which one could use the disguise, or for further proof. After all this murder was entirely different the his others and zodiac seemed sure he NEEDED PROOF for his the Authories to believe him after all. For all the Cops knew he could have been taking the murder to further up his count. Much like some believe he did for Cherri.

I can't take out the three quote's to get rid of all the boxes, when I edit the post.

[Gavrilo Princip Profile]

Ok I will.

Could have, maybe, it's possible...that's all I'm hearing from you. It's possible Zodiac walked a block and got into a car and the person seen walking was not involved in the crime at all. It's possible he sprouted wings and flew away.

Stop being obtuse

Again with the "maybes" and "it's possible".

None of that calls you stupid or mocks you. Stop playing the victim, this is a message board, not a soap opera. Don't make it personal, trust me it's not.

[Texter Profile]

The DICTIONARY DEFINATION.

Obtuse

1. a. Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.
b. Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity:
c. Mentally slow or emotionally insensitive

Of course it can mean your stupid. Or that your opinion means crap.

And I find it funny that you are telling me I am playing the victim when you have been doing it since day one too. Even if you didn't mean for it to come out that way, you still used poor planning when you worded it when you consider the word had multiple definations. As I have said we both look like bad guys doing it, and both are responsible for it turning it into a soap opera and you are as much acting like the victim as I am. I would say it's 51% you and 49% me, as without those remarks I would have never continued to do so. So no I am not playing the victim, I am the victim of your poor vocabulary choice.

And can we atleast keep this on topic? I mean you critic me for saying I waste everyone's time, when you had a whole post that had nothing to do with the topic, of whether or not zodiac would have been identified in it. It was totally off topic.