The three teenagers at Presidio Heights described the man they observed at the corner of Washington and Cherry Street on October 11th 1969, and a drawing of the killer in the form of a bulletin was produced on October 13th. Five days later an amended sketch was produced describing the killer as a 'WMA, 35-45 years, approximately 5'8", heavy build, short brown hair, possibly with red tint, wears glasses, Armed with a 9mm automatic'. This revised sketch was supposed to have originated from the three teenagers, despite the fact there was a noticeable change in the age range. Their initial description described the Zodiac Killer as 25-30 years, but now it had risen markedly to 35-45 years. That is a median rise of nearly 13 years, and despite viewing the taxicab from 50-60 feet away, the other changes could be described as subtle. Furthermore the police report countersigned by Armond Pelissetti and Frank Peda at 6:29 am on October 12th 1969, described a #2 SUSPECT on the second page, as a ​'WMA, in his early forties, 5'8", heavy build, reddish-blond, crew cut hair. wearing eyeglasses, dark brown trousers, dark (navy blue or black) "Parka" jacket, dark shoes. Suspect should have many blood stains on his person and clothing, suspect may also be in possession of the keys to the Yellow Cab, possibly has wallet belonging to the victim. Last seen walking north on Cherry Street, from Washington Street'. Again, who supplied this information - after all the age description of a suspect in his early 40's seems far removed from the 25-30 yrs initially given by the three teenagers.  

Many people have suggested this revised sketch and #2 SUSPECT in the police report may have originated from Officer Donald Fouke's sighting on Jackson Street. There is a problem with this notion however. Donald Fouke never issued his memorandum until November 12th 1969, and gave an age range of 35-45, 5'10" in height and described the suspect's hair as 'light colored'. This in essence sounds similar to the #2 SUSPECT in the police report, as well as the amended police sketch, apart from 'short brown hair'. The problem is that Donald Fouke was never credited regarding the amended sketch.

Donald Fouke also stated in the 2007 Zodiac documentary "One month later when the composite drawing came out at Richmond Station and was posted on the wall he looked similar to the man I had seen on October 11th, I then wrote a scratch to my lieutenant to forward to homicide division, so they would have the additional information and appearance of the suspect."  This again does not sound like a statement of somebody who had already contributed to the amended sketch weeks earlier. The greatest stumbling block regarding Donald Fouke providing the #2 SUSPECT in the police report is the final line, describing a suspect 'Last seen walking north on Cherry Street, from Washington Street.'  Donald Fouke last saw the suspect walking east on Jackson Street, in the vicinity of Maple Street, which he attested to in his memorandum on November 12th 1969. But the police report not only doesn't mention Donald Fouke anywhere, it certainly doesn't say "Suspect 'Last seen walking north on Maple Street, from Jackson.' Therefore the only contributors to the #2 SUSPECT description most likely had to originate from a vantage point allowing them to view the suspect heading up Cherry Street. One could possibly accept the amended sketch originating from the three teenagers, but the #2 SUSPECT was apparently typed up and countersigned by Armond Pelissetti by 6.29 am on October 12th 1969, just 8 1/2 hours after the murder of Paul Stine. This raises the question - how could the three teenagers describe the suspect as '25-30 years of age' and a man in his 'early forties' inside of 9 hours, unless this document was subsequently added to? They would also - although less significant - have to have altered the suspect's hair color from 'reddish-brown' to 'reddish-blond' within the same timeframe. 

We have one major problem mind. If the contributor to the #2 SUSPECT was not Donald Fouke or the three teenagers, who was it. A newspaper article was published by the San Francisco Chronicle on October 12th 1969 regarding a man seen running into Julius Khan playground, describing the man in similar vein to the police report, aged about 40. This again, however, was beyond Cherry Street and the police report did not state that the suspect was 'Last seen running from Spruce Street into Julius Khan playground'.  

It has also been suggested that Armond Pelissetti 'incorporated' Donald Fouke's description into the #2 SUSPECT, but if this were the case then Donald Fouke should have been mentioned in the police report, and the final sighting of the Zodiac listed as 'walking north on Maple' - plus Armond Pelissetti by all accounts didn't accept Donald Fouke had seen Zodiac. This is what he said in the 2007 Zodiac documentary "I believe that Fouke would have been honest, but that scratch and what he told me do not coincide. It seemed Officer Fouke in that amount of time felt that he had stopped the Zodiac. Well, it's very hard to say whether he did or not, it would be a point of conjecture at this point and he seemed quite upset. Fouke was also very clear as to what the person was wearing, well it just so happens that area is extremely well lit and I cannot imagine his not seeing the shine of blood on the clothing if it had been Zodiac. I feel bad for him if he believes that was Zodiac. I don't think it was."  Not the words of an officer who is going to incorporate details of a suspect off his own back, without referencing the source (Donald Fouke) and then countersigning the police report for which he is responsible.

The police report is also separated into six sections #1, #2, #3, #4, #5 and #6. 
Section 1 deals with the teenagers description of the events in and around the taxicab. Section 2 is the description of the suspect. Section 3 deals with the property of Paul Stine and the taxicab. But sections #4, #5 and #6 are effectively left blank, with N/A (not applicable) written after them. The teenagers had already given their description of the suspect to the police dispatcher over the telephone and were to prepare a comprehensive description of the suspect with a police sketch artist. The question is, were #4, #5 and #6 deemed not applicable by Pelissetti, as a full and proper description was already being designed in the form of a wanted poster and Pelissetti did not want to contradict it in the police report. The #4, #5, and #6 may very well have represented the three teenagers descriptions of the suspect, but since they were working on it together, it was considered not applicable.

Let us consider the #2 SUSPECT to be from the three teenagers. They give a description of a man in his early forties with reddish-blond hair, countersigned by Pelissetti at 6:29 am on October 12th 1969. By October 13th 1969 the teenagers first sketch is released, but has changed to a man around 25-30 yrs with reddish-brown hair, and then a few days later they supposedly have a change of heart and an amended sketch is released describing a man aged 35-45, short brown hair, with a red tint. Bearing in mind the #2 SUSPECT, is it conceivable #4, #5 and #6, could have been #4 SUSPECT, #5 SUSPECT and #6 SUSPECT, but in view of the composite sketch they were simply marked not applicable. The answer may simply come down to indecisive teenagers who disagreed among themselves, fluctuating back and forth, until a compromise of 35-45 years was attained in the revised sketch.

Or ​was it a fourth sighting that ultimately gave us the #2 SUSPECT description and an additional eyewitness who may possibly have had a hand in the amended police sketch. The only viable eyewitness we know of, is the 8-year-old witness detailed in the FBI files, described as a witness in the murder of the taxicab driver - who by inference, must have lived within a comparatively short distance from the intersection of Washington and Cherry, to be able to 'see the suspect walking north on Cherry Street.' 

This eyewitness and their family, may have reported the sighting to police near to the scene and requested that their identity be kept discreet, due to the sensitive nature of their statement, hence only the reference to a #2 SUSPECT without the source. Is it also fair to say, that if this 8-year-old was a 'witness in the murder of the cab driver', then a description should have been taken from this child, as it was from the three teenagers, and subsequently taken into account when releasing any descriptions of the killer? The FBI file itself is suggestive that this sighting was regarded as important.
​   
​Alex Lewis recently under the Freedom of Information Act managed to acquire an unredacted version of this FBI file, naming the subject observed by the 8-year-old. It stated 'For info ident division, San Francisco PD advised eight year old witness in murder of cab driver identified ....... as possible subject in this matter.'  The #2 SUSPECT was described as a man in his early forties. The amended police sketch described a man aged 35-45 years. The subject named in the FBI file was 38 years of age on October 11th 1969. It must be stressed however, that the subject named is 'a possible subject in this matter' and not necessarily connected to the crime. To view the unredacted document please visit; 
http://www.zodiacciphers.com/welsh-chappie---zodiac-news/eight-year-old-witness-identified-name-release

On July 31st 1969 the Zodiac Killer began his correspondence with the newspapers in the form of three portions of code mailed to three newspapers. In these letters he would provide details regarding his first two crimes at Lake Herman Road and Blue Rock Springs Park. Accompanying his letters he added the now customary Zodiac 'crossed circle' - by many considered to be the crosshairs of a weapon - although other reasoning has been offered, such as the Celtic Cross. Since the first attributed murders to the Zodiac Killer were that of David Faraday and Betty Lou Jensen at Lake Herman Road, was it possible the murderer's inspiration was to be drawn from this crime and subsequently placed in his first correspondence?

In the Department of Justice, Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation, conducted by David Burd, the firearm identified as the likely murder weapon at Lake Herman Road was a J.C. Higgins 80 pistol. The Sears, Roebuck & Company specialized in sporting goods and recreational equipment between 1908 and 1962, with the Sears JC Higgins eventually replaced with the Ted Williams brand. The Sears, Roebuck & Company manufactured their own paper targets throughout the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s - the very targets a young Zodiac may have used. The following target suggested "For best results with .22 Long Rifle." ​
#1 Paper Rifle Targets 1930s.
#2 Paper Rifle Targets 1950s.​

During the late night hours of December 20th 1968, around 10:00 pm, three eyewitnesses, Robert Connelly, Frank Gasser and Bingo Wesner observed an unoccupied white Chevrolet Impala parked in the Lake Herman Road turnout. Sometime shortly after 9:30 pm, the same night, William Crow was parked in the turnout, from which he was chased by two Caucasian males in a vehicle he would later recall as a light-colored Chevrolet. Fast forward to 11:14 pm - the time attributed to James Owen in the police sketches as having passed the turnout, and the last person that night to have passed the turnout before the murder of David Faraday and Betty Lou Jensen. James Owen undoubtedly saw the killer's vehicle. In fact, he was the only eyewitness that fateful night to describe a second vehicle parked alongside the 1961 tan Rambler of David Faraday. He gave two accounts to police;

[1] 12.21.68 "He states he saw two cars parked near the entrance to the pumping station. He stated the car parked nearest was a 1955 or 1956 station wagon, boxy type, neutral in color. The other was parked to the right and abreast of the station wagon. The cars were about ten feet apart. He stated he could not give a description of the make or color of the other car".
[2] 12.24.68 "He definitely saw two cars, a station wagon and another vehicle, parked approximately three or four feet to the right of the station wagon. He did not see anyone in the cars or around them. He stated as he traveled approximately one quarter of a mile beyond, he thought he heard a shot".

James Owen described in an interview in 2013 with Mike Morford the night he passed the turnout "it was not normal for me to see any cars there, let alone 2 side by side. You could really see that spot good because of the way the lights shine in there, and because it was around a bend". James Owen was correct, in that his journey to Benicia that night meant his headlights would have illuminated that portion of the turnout, however, he was unable to illuminate us in any great detail concerning the second vehicle despite giving us a fairly good description of the Rambler station wagon only 10 feet to its left. Often overlooked, because the eyewitness was not named, it is apparent he gave us a further statement revealing crucial details about the killer's car that night - details that may have implications on the role of the white Chevrolet Impala that night and possibly the number of assailants connected with the murders.

On page 6 of the police report it states the time window of Stella Borges (Medeiros) and James Owen in the top left corner, indicating the possible time of the attack at 11:14 pm to 11:20 pm. It names Stella Medeiros as the person who discovered the crime, the location of the crime, the likely firearm used (JC Higgins auto/pistol), but most importantly in the section labeled 'Vehicle used by suspect(s)' it states "Unknown. Witness observed dark car, lacking in chrome, not large and not compact."  Unknown; referring to the make, yet the witness described the suspect vehicle as dark. The only eyewitness that saw two vehicles in the turnout that night was James Owen, so it couldn't be anybody else between 11:14 pm and 11:20 pm other than Stella Medeiros, and she clearly stated on page 20 of the police report "She saw only one car at the scene. It looked like a Rambler, grayish in color, it had a chrome rack on the top."  Therefore, James Owen was the witness to the description of the assailant's vehicle on page 6.

​The wording is key. When his description of the tan Rambler "a 1955 or 1956 station wagon, boxy type, neutral in color" is placed alongside the suspect vehicle description, it's as though he is comparing them in relation to one another. Neutral in color/dark, station wagon (with chrome style luggage rack and rear)/lacking in chrome, and finally, boxy type/not large or compact. Anybody recalling an individual vehicle on any given night would be unlikely to say the vehicle was 'lacking in chrome,' but by comparing it to the Rambler the phrase makes perfect sense. As James Owen swept around the bend by the turnout his headlights would undoubtedly have highlighted any chrome/metal features on the Rambler (the luggage rack and rear bumper), so describing the second vehicle as 'lacking in chrome' points to the fact he saw more of the assailant's vehicle than we first thought - so much so - that despite being unable to identify "the make or color of the other car,"  he could tell us it was dark in color.

However, we have a problem. If the suspect vehicle in the turnout was dark in color, this seems to exonerate the white Chevrolet Impala from any involvement in the crime. Or does it?  As James Owen was heading to work traveling towards Benicia, he stated on page 15 of the police report "that just before he approached the scene, a vehicle passed him going in the opposite direction towards Vallejo. He could give no description of the vehicle. This occurred near the Borges Ranch".  The occupant(s) of this vehicle have never come forward despite extensive news coverage of the crime. Is it possible this vehicle and the Chevrolet Impala are one and the same, and somehow connected to the crime? 

So, let us review the details of the night. A white Chevrolet Impala is sitting idle, free of occupants in the Lake Herman Road turnout in the minutes around 10:00 pm, observed by Robert Connelly, Frank Gasser and Bingo Wesner on a cold night in December, where the temperatures dipped to a low of 22 degrees Fahrenheit. William Crow was chased by a vehicle along Lake Herman Road, which he would later recall as a light-colored Chevrolet with possibly two Caucasian males. Both these eyewitness testimonies 75-80 minutes precedent to a double homicide. A vehicle, 'dark in color', observed by James Owen in the turnout moments before the murder of David Faraday and Betty Lou Jensen. A vehicle heading towards Vallejo and observed by James Owen by the Borges Ranch, shortly before he reached the turnout devoid of "anyone in the cars or around them". Who said Lake Herman Road was a quiet country road with little traffic. If we assume the 'dark car' contained the murderer(s), then what role, if any, is played by the white Chevrolet Impala - or was this vehicle immaterial to the eventual double murder of David Faraday and Betty Lou Jensen. On the other hand, if the Chevrolet Impala and 'dark car' are connected, then we have a whole different ball game.

With the events at Lake Herman Road for the most part built around eyewitness statements, we shall delve a little deeper into the ballistics evidence gathered from the turnout that fateful night, asking ourselves the question, were David Faraday and Betty Lou Jensen murdered by one or more assailants? Ten casings were itemized at the crime scene and 8 bullets were recovered; five that targeted Betty Lou Jensen, one from David Faraday and two were retrieved from the Rambler station wagon, with the other two never located. Of the ten casings, nine were scattered on the turnout floor and one was discovered on the front passenger floorboard of the Rambler. These bullets and casings were retrieved and sent off for examination to determine the likely weapon used in the murders and indeed if they were actually fired from the same weapon.

Bullets and casings exhibit identifiable markings. In regards to the casings, there are notable features imparted before and as the casing is ejected from the weapon, including firing pin impressions, breech marks, ejector marks and extractor marks. The bullets will exhibit class characteristics such as lands and grooves, that include number, depth and width, all dependent on the barrel rifling unique to that firearm. These lands and grooves, cut left or right, cause the bullet to spin as it is fired from the weapon, creating left or right class characteristics visible on the ejected bullet. 

The police report states that 'Five Super X .22 cartridge cases found at scene by coroner Dan Horan were turned over to RO at the crime scene' and 'Four Super X cartridge cases found at scene by Sgt Silva were turned over to RO at mortuary'.  These casings along with the bullets were sent to the Department of Justice, Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation, where they were examined. This document again details these 9 casings only in an itemized list: [1] Bullet from Faraday's body. [2] Two bullets from Jensen's body. [3] Bullet found in panties of Jensen. [4] Five Super X .22 cartridge cases found at scene by coroner. [5] Four Super X cartridge cases found at scene by Sgt Silva. [6] One bullet found on top of 1961 Rambler. [7] One bullet found in floor mat, left side storage area of 1961 Rambler. [8] One bullet found on ground near Jensen's body. [9] Purple dress of Jensen. 

There were ten casings discovered at the crime scene but only nine were itemized to be tested, the ones found by Sgt Silva and Dan Horan. It is of high probability that these 9 casings were the ones recovered from the turnout floor and not the casing situated on the front passenger side of the Rambler. It was essential the casings were ultimately retrieved from the turnout floor, but was the casing inside the Rambler and marked on the police sketches inadvertently or deliberately left in situ when the Rambler station wagon was towed away for closer examination, ultimately separating this cartridge from the other nine. Hence the Department of Justice report only highlighting nine casings for testing; "Examinations have been conducted of all the bullets and cartridge cases present in items 1 through 8".  This means that likely only nine casings were tested, leaving the possibility that the tenth casing found in the front passenger side floorboard of the Rambler was never compared to the other casings. This may be extremely important if we can link this casing to the bullet used in the murder of David Faraday, and identify that the firearm used in this instance was separate to the one used to discharge the other nine bullets, and thereby possibly implicating a second weapon and second shooter.    

The Department of Justice report stated that the submitted items corresponded with the use of a J C Higgins 80 pistol, "although it must not be assumed that the exhibits must have been fired in such a weapon".  However, it does state a crucial piece of information - that the bullet fired into David Faraday did not contain the same class characteristics as the other seven submitted bullets. What it actually said was 'All bullets submitted were Western copper coated .22 long rifle bullets, although some were damaged, it was possible to determine ALL but Item [1] had 6 right hand groove class characteristics'.  Item [1] was the bullet recovered from David Faraday. This does not indicate the bullet as distinct and separate, but it certainly couldn't be definitively linked either, opening up the possibility it may have originated from a second firearm. If any one bullet recovered that night was to show different characteristics to the others, it could be argued that it is not surprising it came from David Faraday, if there were two assailants that night.

The first assailant triggers the events that night, firing off warning shots into the Rambler. The couple exit the vehicle and are contained by assailant [1] and assailant [2]. Without speculating on the order of the murders, the first assailant who fired into the Rambler secures Betty Lou Jensen, then unleashes a further barrage of gunfire as she flees westwards, accounting for nine casings. The second assailant who has secured David Faraday, murders him with a single shot to the head, accounting for one casing and the bullet that didn't exhibit 6 right hand twist characteristics. There is every reason to believe that the assailant responsible for firing into the Rambler from close quarters is the same person who secured Betty Lou Jensen, as she was first to exit the Rambler as he was approaching the vehicle.       

This is where the 'missing' casing comes into play - the tenth casing not documented in the Department of Justice report, and the one observed lying on the front passenger seat of the Rambler station wagon. With David Faraday standing on the right side of the Rambler (by the right rear wheel), facing away, a weapon pressed up to his head from this position by a right-handed shooter, would likely eject the casing to the shooter's rear, in a direct line with the open door of the Rambler, either deflecting off the door or landing unimpeded onto the passenger side floorboard. If the bullet that killed David Faraday was distinct and separate to the other tested bullets, this 'missing' casing may hold all the answers. If the markings on this casing are similarly unique compared to the other nine casings, then it is not inconceivable that a link exists between the bullet and casing used to murder David Faraday, and may implicate a second assailant on December 20th 1968.  

There should have been a further item listed in the Department of Justice report: [10] 'One Super X cartridge case found on the front passenger side of the Rambler station wagon.' But there wasn't. 

​This website contains no advertisements. To help keep it running, any donations, however small, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Richard.

There were no direct eyewitnesses to the murder of David Faraday and Betty Lou Jensen on December 20th 1968, with some detectives and Zodiac researchers of the opinion these murders were not part of the Zodiac crimes, only a crime that the Zodiac Killer would belatedly lay claim to just over seven months later, after the murder and attempted murder of Darlene Ferrin and Michael Mageau at Blue Rock Springs Park. Some argue for multiple assailants at Lake Herman Road, or at the very least, more than one person being involved in the crime. There were claims by William Crow of suspicious activity between 9:30 pm and 10:00 pm that night, 75 minutes prior to the murders and detailed in the police report: "He stated he was driving his girlfriend's sports car and he was testing it out and adjusting the motor. He was parked in the open area by the pump station and he observed a blue car, possibly a Valiant coming down the road from Benicia towards Vallejo. They passed his location, stopped in the middle of the road and he saw the white lights of the reverse come on and the car started backing up towards them. Mr Owen put the car in gear and took off at a high rate of speed and the car followed him at a high rate of speed. They did not attempt to gain on him, but when they got to the turn off towards Benicia, William Crow turned towards Benicia and the other car went straight ahead. The subjects were both Caucasians and there is no further identification on the car or the subjects". William Crow would later change some details in his account, but this was the original statement typed up by police.  

Approximately 30 minutes later, Stan (a 14 year old) described a 1963 Chevrolet Impala, blue in color, with two occupants heading from Lake Herman Road towards Columbus Parkway in the direction of Blue Rock Springs Park. In later years, William Crow would later recall "I never told the sheriff who interviewed me that the car I encountered was a Valiant. As I recall, as I was attempting to describe the car, the sheriff came up with a “Valiant”. In the years that have passed, when I have shared the events of that night, I have described the car as a four-door light-colored Chevy". The question arises, how do we interpret these overlapping features?
​
The recollection of William Crow often appears an overlooked feature of this case - and if true - the activity he described within 75-90 minutes of the actual double murder at the identical location should not be underestimated. Whether William Crow saw one or two Caucasians is open to scrutiny - and although he claimed the Sheriff  'suggested' the Valiant to him, his later recollection of the number of occupants was less than clear, stating "After some moments, the other car turned around in the roadway and went back down the road from which we had come. I kept making macho statements, but not totally without some sense about me, I drove home. I did not see the car again. I could not see the passenger seat, but the driver was a man with short hair and glasses. I did not see his specific facial features". Reading between the lines, if he couldn't see the passenger seat, there could have been two occupants. This may be significant when considering the sighting of Stan, and more importantly, the report issued by the Department of Justice, Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation, conducted by David Burd regarding the murder of David Faraday and Betty Lou Jensen.​  

Whenever a firearm is discharged, ballistic evidence left at a crime scene will come into play, such as firing pin impressions and breech marks on bullet casings. These can help identify a seized weapon, or be used to compare expended casings from a crime scene and determine whether they were fired from the same gun, or whether multiple shooters may be involved. The analysis of recovered bullets for imparted lands and grooves has similar benefits. So, was there more than one shooter at Lake Herman Road? Did it require two or more assailants to control a situation in which two people were removed from a vehicle in pitch darkness, unlike the scenario at Blue Rock Springs, where the lone assailant kept the couple contained within the vehicle? Did one assailant have control of David Faraday, while the other fired five shots into Betty Lou Jensen? Were both killed by the same person? - enter the ballistics evidence.

​The logical approach would be to examine the bullets recovered from Betty Lou Jensen at autopsy, along with the single bullet recovered from David Faraday, hoping they haven't been completely disfigured on impact, and thereby make a comparison. The same is true for the casings. Here are some excerpts from the Department of Justice report.  

'The following exhibits were submitted [1] Bullet from Faraday's body. [2] Two bullets from Jensen's body. [3] Bullet found in panties of Jensen. [4] Five Super X .22 cartridge cases found at scene by coroner. [5] Four Super X cartridge cases found at scene by Sgt Silva. [6] One bullet found on top of 1961 Rambler. [7] One bullet found in floor mat, left side storage area of 1961 Rambler. [8] One bullet found on ground near Jensen's body. [9] Purple dress of Jensen.'

What is important, is how you interpret these findings.The report continued 'Intercomparison of the cartridge cases in items [4] and [5] indicate that all were probably fired from the same weapon and all are the same make and type of ammunition. Due to the lack of sufficient unique structure it appears that considerable difficulty will be encountered in positively identifying the responsible weapon if it should be recovered.'  

This seems to indicate that nine of the casings found at the crime scene were likely fired from one weapon. However, there were ten casings recovered. Did the final casing match the other nine, and why is this not mentioned in [1] through [9]? The following statement in the Department of Justice report is crucial: 'All bullets submitted were Western copper coated .22 long rifle bullets, Although some were damaged, it was possible to determine ALL had 6 right hand groove class characteristics. apart from item' [1]'

​Item [1] was the bullet recovered from David Faraday and it didn't exhibit these characteristics. Is this the proof that more than one person was involved in the Lake Herman Road murders? It would seem highly unlikely that the Zodiac Killer fired 9 shots with one weapon, then switched to a similar model, but separate gun, to murder David Faraday. Was the murderer of David Faraday, the assailant given the responsibility of subduing him - possibly restraining him from behind by a left-handed shooter, while a second subject initiated the attack and murdered Betty Lou Jensen? Does this ballistics evidence suggest there were two shooters at Lake Herman Road on December 20th 1968, especially considering the suspicious activities experienced by William Crow only 75 minutes earlier, possibly involving two Caucasian males? The pervading notion is that the killer or killers were opportunistic by nature, cruising up and down Lake Herman Road looking for potential victims. Or, were the murders planned in advance by two or more assailants? The answer, in part, may lie with 'Item [1]'.