The following will be extremely speculatory and should not to be taken too seriously, but I wanted to examine the prompt by Professor D.C.B. Marsh who told the Examiner on October 22nd 1969: "The killer wouldn't dare, as he claimed in letters to the newspapers, to reveal his name in the cipher to established cryptogram experts. He knows, to quote Edgar Allen Poe, that any cipher created by man can be solved by man. Zodiac has not told the truth in his cipher messages to the Examiner, the Chronicle and the Vallejo Times-Herald. Zodiac has not done this, because to tell the complete truth in relation to his name - in cipher code - would lead to his capture. I invite Zodiac to send The American Cryptogram Association a cipher code - however complicated - which will truly and honestly include his name".

When recently promoting the notion of a killer providing us with all the solutions to his ciphers in Three Months After the Mount Diablo Code, it was considered that the Zodiac Killer did respond to Dr. Marsh, but he certainly wasn't going to be as forthcoming as to provide us with his full name as Dr. Marsh had honestly requested. Hence the idea that he did give us his name, albeit in the abridged version of his initials which he supplied to us in the October 5th 1970 '13 Hole' Postcard. When this was slotted into the April 20th 1970 '13 Symbol' Cipher it read like so: "This is the Zodiac speaking. By the way have you cracked the last cipher I sent you? My name is Fk, I'm crackproof". The Zodiac Killer had in effect answered the request of Dr. Marsh, although in a rather devious manner. However, Dr. Marsh issued this challenge on October 22nd 1969 and the 340 Cipher came before the 13 Symbol Cipher.     

One of the most prominent features in the 340 Cipher is the sixth line where he corrects a forward facing K to a backwards facing K, similar in nature to the way he reversed the "Fk, I'm crackproof" phrase on the 13 Hole Postcard. The proximity of F and K can be noted in these two outstanding features - and possibly the Zodiac thought it mildly amusing to provide his name to Dr. Marsh in the extremely "complicated" manner of reversing his name or initials. Everybody was searching for a stunningly complicated solution to the 340 character cipher as Dr. Marsh had requested, so the Zodiac Killer gave us the complete opposite.

The connection between the 13 Hole Postcard and 13 Symbol Cipher was not only bound in the "Fk, I'm crackproof" solution, but the two phrases he used in each communication didn't go unnoticed either. The Zodiac Killer inextricably tied the two correspondences together using similar phraseology, such as "What is the price tag now" and "how much money you have on my head now". On January 29th 1970, the Yellow Cab Company put up a thousand dollar reward for any information leading to the arrest of the Zodiac Killer. In addition, the Teamsters Union which represents the Yellow Cab Company were reported in the San Francisco Chronicle to be considering offering a further reward on February 8th 1970 in the case of Paul Stine and Charles Jarman (another taxicab murder victim). This news was likely what prompted the Zodiac Killer to open this communication with the words "I am mildly cerous as to how much money you have on my head now".  Or could there be another more subtle clue in these phrases with regard to his name?

Where on the April 20th 1970 letter and throughout much of his communications to date (including the 340 Cipher) could money or a price tag be found on a head? The 13 Symbol Cipher letter carried a dated 1966 Franklin D. Roosevelt stamp, where indeed "money" or a "price tag" could be found 'on' the head of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Was this a subtle hint to his first name of "Franklin" or "Frank". This would satisfy the F part of "Fk, I'm crackproof" - but as stated earlier,  very speculative to say the least.

Another communication where he promised us his name was the October 27th 1970 'Halloween' Card, in which he gave us an odd-looking symbol and placed it on the left side of the envelope and the Halloween Card inner, followed by the letter Z. The correct way to address an envelope is to write the sender's name and address in the top left corner of the envelope, shown here on a Youtube video, and the recipient address (in this case Paul Avery) in the center of the envelope. Therefore, this strange symbol could equate to the sender's name. Since we are looking for the initials of the Zodiac Killer (which may be reversed for a third time), it is extremely promising that we have an F looking character on the right side yet again. I don't like too much manipulation and the use of mathematics anymore, but on this occasion I will choose the path of least resistance and take the 7 and 4 dots to equal 11 (K being the 11th letter of the alphabet) - and therefore give us a joined K and F for his name on the return section of the envelope. Unfortunately, manipulation such as this always leads to the possibility of multiple solutions, so we have to be guarded to any conclusions we make. Finally, I would like to take a look at the sister card to the Halloween Card mailed in the December of 1990. It too promised us his name.       

The greeting card was again from our Secret Pal just like the Halloween Card twenty years earlier - it began with the message "FROM YOUR SECRET PAL CAN'T GUESS WHO I AM YET? WELL, LOOK INSIDE AND YOU'LL FIND OUT". Then promised to keep us guessing on the card inner.

All the Zodiac Killer added to the card inner was a Xerox copy of some "keys". It really couldn't be any simpler. The card outer stated "From your secret pal, can't guess who I am yet? Well, look inside and you'll find out" followed by "keys". This may very well be the final really complicated answer to the challenge laid down by Dr. Marsh all those years earlier. The surname of Keys, Keyes or Keays would satisfy the K of FK, from the phrase "This is the Zodiac speaking. By the way have you cracked the last cipher I sent you? My name is Fk, I'm crackproof".

This mocking response to Professor D.C.B. Marsh, who requested that the Zodiac Killer "send The American Cryptogram Association a cipher code - however complicated - which will truly and honestly include his name" was probably befitting of the Zodiac Killer. The answer may have been simpler than we could ever of imagined. Return to sender: Franklin Keys (or alternate options above).

Of course, I am not claiming this to be the answer regarding the identity of the Zodiac Killer, but it would be rather appropriate for the Zodiac Killer to have begun his letter writing campaign with Franklin on the stamps of his July 31st 1969 trinity of communications, and ended with his surname of Keys in 1990 - and thumb a finger to all the cipher experts trying vainly to crack his extremely complicated ciphers, when the answer was literally staring us in the face all along. 

Not wanting to just copy the entirety of Ricardo Gomez's article, I suggest you take a look at the article entitled "The Taft Theory" that I believe is the true inspiration for the Riverside Desktop Poem discovered on December 1966. Whether the writing on the desktop was the Zodiac Killer or not, we do know that the writings or thoughts of people are often inspired by previous experiences - and in the case of the Zodiac Killer, things he read in the newspaper. In brief, Rolland Taft was arrested and jailed for the stabbing of a Riverside woman at Riverside City College on April 13th 1965, subsequently reported in The Press and Daily Enterprise on April 17th 1965 under the title Clean-cut Youth Sought For Stabbing and possibly the inspiration for the beginning of the poem and its overall contents. See Ricardo Gomez's follow-up article here.

Despite the Riverside Desktop Poem being diacovered in December 1966, it is unknown when this poem was written. I highly doubt it was authored shortly after the story of the stabbing broke on April 17th 1965 because of its contents on the final line, but suspect it was etched into the plywood desk with a blue ballpoint pen shortly before the murder of Cheri Jo Bates on October 30th 1966. The newspaper story of Rolland Taft and the stabbing of the young woman at Riverside City College must have been vividly remembered by the Desktop Poem author, which inspired him to create the morbid offering. The writing on the desktop is telling regarding the April 13th 1965 attack, because the poem is reflective upon past events such as "she won't die, this time someone'll find her". The young woman did seek help and ultimately survived her brutal attack. The notion of a copycat killer is nothing new, and it appears that the author of the Desktop Poem may have been one such person.

It is highly unlikely that the author of the Desktop Poem, had they been reminiscing about the stabbing of the young woman and subsequent newspaper coverage, would have been someone other than a Riverside resident at the time of both the newspaper coverage and the authorship of the poem. If this was the Zodiac Killer and he was resident in the Bay Area in 1965 and 1966, then his knowledge of this crime would be slim at best. This person had to have knowledge of the young woman's stabbing a year earlier and must have had access to the Riverside City College library, thereby spanning an extended period. So may have lived locally.  

The reason for believing the Desktop Poem was authored just prior to the murder of Cheri Jo Bates on October 30th 1966, is not only the reflective tone of the writing, but the ominous projection forward of "just wait till next time" followed by two inscribed alphabetical letters. When you are proclaiming a further attack in similar fashion to the stabbing of the young woman and immediately following it with "rh", one cannot be too surprised when a further knife attack results in the death of another young woman on Halloween eve in Riverside. Hence the attribution of "rh" meaning "riverside halloween". This was the promise of "next time". 

Remember, the author of the Confession letter had suggested he was trying to lure Cheri Jo Bates into his vehicle. This could indicate that he had planned to murder Cheri Jo Bates later than the believed 10:30 pm, when screams emanated from the nearby alleyway - likely on Halloween Day itself - but something clearly had resulted in the unplanned struggle in the alleyway and her 'premature' murder from the perspective of the killer. Had he achieved his objective in luring the young woman into his vehicle, the likely prediction of the Riverside Desktop Poem would have come true. "Just wait till next time. riverside, halloween".

The choice of present tense in writing "she won't die, this time someone'll find her" rather than "she didn't die, last time someone found her", is indicative of the author reflecting as opposed to claiming the previous knife attack. That was because Rolland Taft was incarcerated shortly after the April 13th 1965 attack and was still in jail at the time of the Cheri Jo Bates murder. The author knew this fact - and why he made no direct claim to the attack on the young woman by using the past tense.

For those believing the Riverside Desktop Poem was authored by the Zodiac Killer, may now be able to place the Bay Area murderer in Riverside as early as 1965, and quite possibly up to April 30th 1967 when the three Bates letters promising even more killing arrived. The Zodiac Killer was an avid reader of the newspapers, often inspired by articles not only about his murders, but other attacks as well. Was this the case during 1965 and 1966 in Riverside?  

It is now 56 years since the brutal slaying of Robert George Domingos (18) and Linda Faye Edwards (17) at Canada Del Molino on June 4th 1963. The area was 25 miles west of Santa Barbara. The young couple had driven to the beach in their copper and black 1956 Pontiac, parking alongside Highway 101, before taking the 6 to 10 minute descent to the water's edge. It was believed they arrived at the beach at about 3:00 pm. Sometime after they arrived they were approached by one or more people who were thought to have forced them under gunpoint in an attempt to restrain the couple using pre-cut lengths of rope. However, there may have been resistance from Robert Domingos and possibly a brief exchange of blows, before the couple fled for their lives in a northerly direction. Their bid for freedom was short-lived, having been gunned down by 19 bullets from a .22 caliber weapon. Robert Domingos was shot eleven times and Linda Edwards was struck eight times, in which the killer reloaded his weapon at least once. Robert was dragged face down 30 feet to a nearby shack, whereas Linda was dragged face up and her body placed atop of Robert. Her bathing suit was found cut open exposing her breasts but there appeared to be no further sexual interaction apparent. Several boxes of .22 ammunition were found inside the shack, along with some spent matches.

There have been the obvious parallels drawn to the Lake Berryessa attack on September 27th 1969, but despite the reports of pre-cut lengths of rope, there appears little else to connect this crime to the knife attack on Cecelia Shepard and Bryan Hartnell, other than a waterfront scene (although detectives may have information unavailable to the public). However, there is much more reason to connect the murder of Robert Domingos and Linda Edwards to the recent sniper reports only two days prior to this attack, on June 2nd 1963.

There were at least two reports of gunfire either side of the area where Robert and Linda were eventually murdered. Eleven teenagers in total reported two bullets whizzing past them as they were standing by their vehicles in a remote area of Gaviota State Park. They had been surfing at the beach that day. They reported that the shooting took place at around mid-afternoon. In another incident seven miles east, three teenagers camping at Tajiguas Creek reported hearing gunshots coming from the beach, just south of their location. The time was given as daybreak. Both sets of earwitnesses descrbed what they thought was the sound of a .22 gun.

There are obvious similarities in these events to the Domingos and Edwards story, in that the ammunition used in their murders was .22 caliber. They too were teenagers hanging out close to the coastline - and two of the attacks were believed to have occurred in mid-afternoon (about 3:00 pm in the case of Domingos and Edwards). The sniper attack at Gaviota State Park occurred 3.38 miles west of Canada Del Molino, and the teenagers at Tajiguas Creek heard gunshots coming from the beach approximately 3.84 miles east of Canada Del Molino. Then, two days later Robert and Linda were killed in an area bisecting these two points. What is extremely interesting (if correct) is Sheriff Webster stated that the lot number of the ammunition used in the murder of Robert and Linda was the same as the lot number of ammunition sold at a Santa Barbara store in April. The lot numbers also matched ammunition sold at Vandenberg Air Force Base, but the boxes at the crime scene were devoid of the price tags usually sold at the Air Base. The ammunition was Western Super X .22 caliber long rifle with a lot number TL-21. A lot number is an identification number assigned to a particular quantity or lot of material from a single manufacturer. Lot numbers can typically be found on the outside of packaging. Western Super X .22 caliber was used by the Zodiac Killer at Lake Herman Road.

Even though there were reports that the murderer of Robert and Linda attempted to burn down the shack where he placed the bodies, determining when these matches were struck, along with the tarpaulin scorch marks noted, is impossible to correlate with the murders. But why would the murderer or murderers waste valuable time dragging two bodies over difficult terrain at least 60 feet in total? Why not just exit the area as soon as possible and immediately separate yourself from the crime scene? The stacking of the bodies one on top of the other must have been done for purpose. Likely a male killer, it is probably no surprise that Linda was discovered on top of Robert with her breasts exposed. Unless her bathing costume had been torn during the dragging of the bodies, then it's extremely likely there was a sexual component to this crime, with the killer possibly wanting to spend time with the bodies in the seclusion of the shack. The hunter bringing home the prey to satisfy his necrophilic tendencies (a fascination with dead bodies) cannot be ruled out. There seems little other purpose to relocate the bodies in such a fashion. If the killer had worn gloves and shot the couple at distance, there appears no barrier preventing the perpetrator or perpetrators just leaving the scene.

It is highly unlikely that a killer would carry boxes of ammunition to a crime scene to perpetrate one or two murders. A clip or two is more than enough. If this person was a hunter who enjoyed taking pot-shots at wildlife (including birds), a day by the ocean in relative seclusion would be the ideal day out - and somebody arriving at the shack with several boxes of ammunition could certainly keep themselves entertained for a long period of time. If this hunter of animals had an over zealous intersest in killing (or was maybe the sniper taking pot-shots at teenagers), then when Robert and Linda inadvertently walked into his lair, their fate was effectively sealed. This time he could get close up and personal. His eventual slaying of the couple was certainly overkill by any standards - suggesting he enjoyed the act of killing - and his enjoyment continued with his interaction with the bodies far longer than the crime scene necessitated. The notion of a killer attempting to burn down the shack to destroy evidence makes little sense. It would have actually drawn attention to the area and any vehicle he may have parked nearby. However, separating yourself from the boxes of ammunition makes far more sense. It is also extremely likely the killer was familiar with this area - off the beaten track, away from prying eyes and ideal for a spot of shooting practice, inanimate or otherwise.

These beach side locations were the perfect spot for somebody wanting a degree of privacy and cover while shooting at unsuspecting beachgoers, as was the case with the surfers at Gaviota State Park. An area such as the one shown here provides ample cover as well as an exposed target. The same can be seen at the beach area by Tajiguas Creek. It is difficult to say with any certainty that a sniper was operating at Gaviota State Park and Tajiguas Creek, however, these two reports so close to the murders of Robert and Linda are extremely pertinent with respect to their untimely deaths. As with many serial killers, the employment of a buffer zone from residence to crime scene can be resourced as a valuable tool in narrowing down the offender's home location, so somebody traveling from Goleta or Santa Barbara would be leaving a buffer zone of 18 and 25 miles respectively to Canada Del Molino.

205 miles southeast of Canada Del Molino and eight months later,  John and Joyce Swindle, a newlywed couple were brutally gunned down on Wednesday February 5th 1964 as they were enjoying an evening out on Ocean Beach, San Diego, near Narragansett Avenue. It appeared the killer had shot them from distance first, perched near a retaining wall overlooking the sea, before moving in to deliver the final shots at close range. Five shots from a .22 caliber weapon had been discharged from his sniper position by the rocks, with the last two as he approached the felled couple. "On the ledge of the retaining wall police found a box of Valentine candy. Police assume the Swindles bought the candy while on their stroll but they said it could have been left behind as a deranged killer's calling card".

Early on in the investigation of the Domingos and Edwards murders, a 17-year-old boy from Lompoc was arrested due to intoxication and revealed to investigators that he knew the murdered couple, having been jealous of Robert Domingos - and it was noted by investigators that the boy had a badly bruised hand and knuckles "pushed in", consistent with a fight. It was believed that Robert Domingos may have struggled with the assailant before being shot. He explained to officers he had been at Refugio Beach on the Tuesday of their murder and Refugio Beach is 5.65 miles east of the crime scene. Under questioning the teenager was combative and belligerent, indicative of somebody who was already known to Lompoc police, having a previous arrest record.

On June 5th 1963, investigators traveled to Santa Cruz to apprehend two teenagers, James L. Coleman and J, C, Reed for the fatal stabbing of Vernon Charles Smith (63) in Lompoc during a robbery. They claimed their vehicle had ran out of gas and asked Vernon Smith for his assistance. Neither were considered suspects in the Domingos and Edwards slayings but implicated a third person called "Sandy" in the murder of Vernon Smith. The two youths admitted their part in the robbery but claimed it was "Sandy" who perpetrated the murder of Vernon Smith at San Miguelito Canyon, approximately 3 miles south of Lompoc. He was discovered lying on his back in a gravel ditch, towards the front side of his green 1951 Willy's Jeep pick-up. Close by was the gasoline can and fuel that he had acquired at a nearby gas station to help the teenagers. His cause of death was a knife wound to the back which penetrated his heart. Coleman and Reed were eventually convicted in a Santa Barbara County court and sentenced to 5 years to life for second-degree murder. "Sandy" was then sought for questioning in relation to the Domingos and Edwards murders. Santa Barbara detectives later stated that they discovered a vehicle stolen by the three youths and inside retrieved some clothing thought to have been owned by "Sandy". The clothing contained the names "Robert Coffman" and "William Carr", one of which they believe could be the true identity of "Sandy".

"Mabel Keener, manager of the Royal Motel, Arroye Grande, testified a boy resembling "Sandy" came to her hotel at 4 a.m, June 3 and registered as William Carr, of Bakersfield. He stayed until the next morning and left, she said. She declared the sheriff's composite drawing of "Sandy" as made by Hal C. Clark, resembled "Sandy" in some ways but not exactly about the mouth and hair. Raymond W. Kissian and Gilberto Serros, Lompoc gas station attendants, also testified. Serros said he waited on Smith (Vernon) that night when Smith drove up in his jeep, which also contained a youth resembling "Sandy". Smith, who was playing the part of "Good Samaritan" filling up a gas can to take to the youths stalled car in Miguelito Canyon, drove off with a full can of gas, said Serros".

In the following examination we shall take a further look at statements by several key eyewitnesses on the evening of October 30th 1966, shortly before the murder of Cheri Jo Bates. The first being Walter Siebert and the four workmen. Walter Siebert stated that "he and a few friends were in the library from 7:15 pm until 9, but did not see Miss Bates, whom they all knew. They said they saw four men dressed in work clothes sitting on a fence across from the spot where Miss Bates' car was found, but they did not know them". This statement is explicit, when it mentions that Walter Siebert noticed the four workmen opposite to where Cheri Jo Bates' vehicle was "found", not opposite her vehicle on the night of the murder. It is apparent that Walter Siebert already knew where the young woman's vehicle had been found on October 31st 1966 and told police that four workmen were sitting in that location on the evening of the murder, but he never saw Cheri Jo Bates - and never mentioned seeing her vehicle that night either. Now let us consider the brief statement of the four workmen.

They stated "they had seen Cheri Jo near her car the previous night". If they knew it was her vehicle, there is a high probability they saw the young woman either exit her vehicle to proceed to the library, or enter her vehicle to drive away and place the books she had acquired from the library on the passenger seat. If we coalesced the two statements of Walter Siebert and the four workmen as a one time event, then it's clear that the four workmen saw Cheri Jo Bates, but Walter Siebert didn't. If this were the case, the young woman couldn't have been exiting her vehicle at 7:15 pm to enter the library, because shortly afterwards Walter Siebert entered the library with a few friends "but did not see Miss Bates, whom they all knew". Had Cheri Jo Bates been exiting the library and entering her vehicle at 7:15 pm to drive away, the four workmen would have noticed her failing to start the car and being offered assistance by the "good Samaritan", but they mentioned neither. Therefore, the workmen couldn't have been present on the fence opposite her vehicle at 7:15 pm at the same time they saw Cheri. They must have seen her at a different time.

A Mexican-American student: stated 'he knew Cheri Jo Bates and had noticed her in the library the night in question. He said he saw the girl "writing something with a ball point pen in her blue spiral school notebook". The boy told us he was outside about 5:30 pm, waiting for the library to open at 6, and it was then he saw the girl'. In part, this is an ambiguous statement, but clearly states that he saw Cheri Jo Bates "in" the library that evening shortly after it had opened. If the four workmen saw Cheri Jo Bates when she parked her vehicle to enter the library around 6:00 pm, then we have to consider the Confession Letter mailed on November 29th 1966, which stated "I first pulled the middle wire from the distributor. Then I waited for her in the library and followed her out after about two minutes. The battery must have been about dead by then. I then offered to help". The idea that her car was disabled shortly after she exited her vehicle and entered the library, before leaving two minutes later, would have required the four workmen seeing neither the man disabling her vehicle, Cheri Jo Bates failing to start her vehicle, or the man assisting and talking to Cheri Jo Bates. They clearly recalled none of these events, otherwise police wouldn't be at a loss as to what happened that evening. 

Since we know Cheri Jo Bates entered the library around 6:00 pm opening time, the four workmen must have seen the young woman at this time, because no other sightings were given to police of Cheri Jo Bates subsequent to this period of time. The four workmen described no activity of any note regarding her Volkswagen Beetle. There is a small window of time that can be argued however. Could the workmen have noticed Cheri Jo Bates park her vehicle and walk to the library, and then left the arrea - at which point the perpetrator disabled her vehicle? For this to be the case, we would have to believe that Cheri Jo Bates arrived back at her vehicle shortly after 6:00 pm and after failing to start her vehicle, the amiable "good Samaritan" offered his assistance. The Confession Letter stated "She was then very willing to talk to me. I told her that my car was down the street and that I would give her a lift home". So obviously, Cheri Jo Bates having spoken to this friendly and helpful "good Samaritan", decided to totally ignore the library which had a telephone and proceeded to walk off with this person, leaving her windows rolled down, the vehicle unlocked, one door slightly ajar and her keys in the ignition (that may also have had her house keys on). This was her prized Volkswagen Beetle, but thought "what the heck", I'll trundle off down this dark alleyway (even though she was afraid of the dark) with a complete stranger. Even if she knew the person, who to this point was friendly, it doesn't make any sense that she would leave her vehicle in such disarray.

At approximately 9:30 pm, a female student purportedly noticed a man standing in the fateful alleyway smoking a cigarette and exchanged brief greetings with him. She later failed to identify anybody from a photographic line-up, including 'Bob Barnett', the prime suspect in the Riverside Police Department investigation. He would later be excluded using mitochondrial DNA retrieved from blood-clotted hair found at the base of Cheri Jo Bates' right thumb. The female student eyewitness was certainly credible enough to police, because they later retrieved a cigarette butt from the alleyway close to where the man was last seen standing. She mentioned no body lying in the alleyway. Then we have the screams heard by people coming from the alleyway. A female earwitness described "an awful scream between 10:15 pm and 10:45 pm, and then about two minutes of silence, and finally the sound of an old car starting up". For Cheri Jo Bates to have been killed shortly after 6:00 pm, we would have to disregard both of these statements and believe that she wilfully left her vehicle in the state it was eventually found.  

The last known sighting of Cheri Jo Bates was her arriving and entering the library at 6:00 pm, so this had to be the time the four workmen saw her. The four workmen were again seen at 7:15 pm by Walter Siebert and friends. If the four workmen remained sitting on the fence opposite the Volkswagen Beetle throughout this time period, they clearly didn't report any suspicious activity around the vehicle and didn't hear any screams from the nearby alleyway either. They could have spotted Cheri Jo Bates around 6:00 pm, then vacated the area and returned at 7:15 pm, but this doesn't change the fact they saw nothing untoward in the near time Cheri was spotted leaving or returning to her vehicle around 6:00 pm. Her Volkswagen Beetle must have been disabled at a later time. From everything we have learned, it is apparent she went off the radar for about 4 1/2 hours until her death at around 10:30 pm. Whoever she was with has never come forward - and this is likely the person who disabled the Volkswagen Beetle and murdered the young woman. If she walked away from the library shortly after 6:00 pm (in absence of her vehicle) with a friend or somebody she trusted, then this person may have lived nearby. It is my contention that the disabling of her vehicle and subsequent murder were one continuous event by somebody she trusted. You may have a different opinion.

Many Zodiac enthusiasts have pondered from where did the Zodiac Killer acquire his pseudonym, or when he decided upon the name Zodiac. The Bay Area murderer arrived at Lake Herman Road on December 20th 1968, where he callously executed David Faraday and Betty Lou Jensen with six shots to the head and body. Just over seven months later, on July 31st 1969, he mailed three pieces of correspondence to the San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Examiner and Vallejo Times-Herald, but failed to introduce himself as Zodiac despite having over half a year to formulate a pseudonym. He only introduced himself as the "killer" and "murderer".

Three letters, detailing his crimes and awash with cryptograms, announcing his arrival to the newspapers, seemed like the perfect opportunity to announce those infamous words of "This is the Zodiac speaking" - yet nothing. His next communication was only sent in response to Vallejo Police Chief Jack E. Stiltz, who doubted the letter writer and killer were the same person and "urged the writer yesterday to send more letters with more facts to prove his connection with the crimes". The Bay Area murderer immediately replied on August 4th 1969, stating "This is the Zodiac speaking. In answer to your asking for more details about the good times I have had in Vallejo, I shall be very happy to supply even more material". It can be seen that this letter would never have been sent, had Vallejo Police Chief Jack E. Stiltz not urged the killer to do so. If the letter had not been sent, then our killer would not have presented himself as Zodiac on August 4th 1969. In fact, he may not have adopted the pseudonym at all.

In absence of this letter, the next letter to contain his pseudonym was mailed two days after the Paul Stine murder on October 13th 1969. So, it's entirely plausible that the muderer of five could have begun and ended his attacks in the Bay Area as a nameless killer. The Vallejo News Chronicle published one-third of his 408 Cipher on August 1st 1969, the San Francisco Chronicle did the same on August 2nd 1969, with the San Francisco Examiner waiting until August 3rd 1969 and publishing all three parts, but on a lowly page nine. All three carried the message from Vallejo Police Chief Jack E. Stiltz, yet despite the Examiner publishing their part of the cipher the latest and relegating it further from the front page than the other publications, in defiance of his demands for front page coverage by Friday afternoon, it was the Examiner he chose to introduce his pseudonym to. In other words, they complied the least, but the killer chose to "supply more details" to them rather than a Vallejo publication and to the home city of Vallejo Police Chief Jack E. Stiltz, who he was supposedly addressing.

There is a real possibility that the murderer of three chose the San Francisco Examiner because they were the only publication to give the murderer a pseudonym, which may have ultimately triggered the following communication a day later. The Examiner wrote "The police telephone system was clogged by anxious callers asking if the "cipher killer" had been caught". The murderer seemingly didn't appreciate the pseudonym given to him and a day later, on August 4th 1969, he introduced himself to the Bay Area with "This is the Zodiac speaking". But why this phrase? The Examiner article noted that "the police telephone system was clogged by anxious callers asking if the "cipher killer" had been caught", so what better way to announce yourself as you might do over the telephone. This wasn't an anxious caller, this was the Zodiac speaking.  

Without this San Francisco Examiner article and resultant Debut of Zodiac Letter on August 4th - announcing yourself as the "Zodiac" on October 13th 1969 after the end of a ten month series of murders, certainly wouldn't have had the same impact. Without the publication of "cipher killer", the pseudonym of the Zodiac Killer would in all probability never have existed.

The counter-argument to the above, is the killer had ample time to give himself a pseudonym from December 20th 1968 to July 31st 1969, and only began the trinity of letters with "murderer" and "killer" because he had reserved the pseudonym "Zodiac" for the 18 characters at the foot of the Chronicle cipher. This was the portion he claimed held his "identity". A hidden pseudonym would be negated had he began the correspondence with "This is the Zodiac speaking". With the entirety of his communications beginning with this phrase, does it lend credence to the notion its absence from the introduction to these three letters, is validation to its concealment in the 18 unsolved characters?  If he hadn't preselected his pseudonym in advance of the July 31st 1969 letters, one could revert back to the notion it was the "cipher killer" attribution that triggered his reply on August 4th 1969. For 35 years starting in 1965, the San Francisco Chronicle and Examiner operated under a Joint Operating Agreement whereby the Chronicle published a morning paper and the Examiner published in the afternoon. The Examiner published the Sunday paper's news sections and glossy magazine, and the Chronicle contributed the features. Circulation was approximately 100,000 on weekdays and 500,000 on Sundays. By 1995, discussion was already brewing in print media about the possible shuttering of the Examiner due to low circulation and an extremely disadvantageous revenue sharing agreement for the Chronicle. Wikipedia. The Bay Area murderer's reply on August 4th, including his pseudonym for the first time, would therefore have been formulated in the mind of the killer from the moment he read the Sunday Examiner publication to his creation of the letter. The Zodiac Killer being born on August 3rd 1969, or early Monday morning on the fourth.
   

However, if he had decided upon his pseudonym in advance of the July 31st 1969 letters and had consciously withheld his pseudonym from his introduction so as to place it within the 18 unsolved characters - then having failed to do so - would be counterintuitive. One could argue that his use of the words "killer" and "murderer" were chosen for purpose, thereby lending credence to a viable solution with respect to the 18 unsolved characters. 

The 18 unsolved characters (if they contain any meaning whatsoever) clearly operate under a different technique of decryption to the other 390 characters. So if the Zodiac Killer didn't happen upon his pseudonym on August 3rd or 4th, then we have the very real possibility that the identity of "Zodiac" does reside in these final 18 characters, to which he alluded to in his address to Vallejo Police Chief Jack E. Stiltz on August 4th 1969. The Zodiac Killer stated "when they do crack it, they will have me".

The Benicia High School note was placed on the front door of the premises sometime in 1972 or 1973. I will attempt to analyze this correspondence from two angles:
[1] It was designed by two young children who were eventually arrested by law enforcement in 1974, and [2] It was authored by a Zodiac Killer employing a different handwriting technique. So first we will take a look at an article published in the Vallejo Times-Herald on May 17th 1974:

"Two 16-year-old Benicia youths were apprehended by police here as suspects in a series of phoned bomb threats that prompted the evacuation of Benicia High School four times during the day. Officers said the pair allegedly made two phone calls to the Benicia Fire Department, warning firemen that two bombs had been planted at the high school and were going to explode. Police said the youths allegedly made two other phone calls to the school, informing officials two bombs had been planted - one inside and the other outside the building. In each instance, police said, the 700 high school students and faculty were evacuated and a thorough search of the building made for explosives. Poilice said the two youths are Benicia High School students and were apprehended near a payphone on J Street, between West Fifth and West Sixth Streets. Officers said the youths admitted making the bomb scare calls from a phone booth but gave no reason for doing so. Police said both were lodged in Juvenile Hall in Fairfield on felony charges accusing them of phoning bomb threats. Officers revealed Benicia High School has been plagued with a series of phoned bomb threats since the start of Fall term last September. During one two week period, police said, school authorities received one or two such calls every day. Police said two 14-year-old boys were arrested as suspects about a month ago (approximately April 17th 1974), admitted making the phone calls and now are on probation".

This article in the Vallejo Times-Herald, coupled with the Benicia High School note (below) could give us the exact date the threatening note was directed toward the school, assuming these two youths were responsible for both. There is an extremely high probability this was the case - and if so - the Benicia High School note was likely placed at the school in the September of 1973. The next thing to do is pinpoint an exact date using the note itself.

The wording on the note as interpreted by Lyndon Lafferty I believe is correct, with "son" meaning Sunday. This is my interpretation of the communication.

"I'm sorry, but by Sunday I shouldn't have said anything about what time I was to blow up the school, so instead I will do it between now and the 22nd December. So, I have killed by Sunday and you will find him (the body) up by Lake Herman Road. If you get there in time you will find him before the dogs eat him. I hope they do".

The phrase "This his blood" has been fashioned with the S's reversed, possibly indicating that the alleged murder had taken place on Saturday 22nd September 1973 - in other words, by Sunday. It is then easy to subconsciously write December 22nd 1973 as an end date for blowing up the school, as this date is already in your mind for September (and a nice round figure of 3 months to project forward from and arrive at December 22nd). A suggested murder committed on Saturday September 22nd 1973, with the note being placed at Benicia High School later that day or the following day, and hence the past tense of "you will find him" and get there "before the dogs eat him". Mischievous kids with too much time on their hands at the weekend, depositing the note at the high school. It is my guess that the note was likely authored on the Saturday and placed at Benicia High School later that day - on September 22nd 1973.

The interpreted wording of "but by Sunday I shouldn't have said anything about what time I was to blow up the school" appears like the author is referring to the past Sunday as the ultimatum and date he had previously phoned in for the deadline of the bomb exploding, to which he was now backtracking. That would have been Sunday September 16th 1973, satisfying the two weeks of incessant phone calls detailed in the Vallejo Times-Herald newspaper article and beginning in the Fall. No letter was mentioned in the 1974 article, suggesting it may have been linked to these two children and dismissed as a credible Zodiac correspondence.

Then we have to consider the chance that it was authored by the Zodiac Killer. On the face of it, the communication appears to be inspired by previous Zodiac correspondence, with the threat of a bomb, the reversed letter N on the first line mimicking the Halloween Card, the Confession Letter "about time" and the reference to Lake Herman Road, with the near date of December 22nd a reminder of past events. The only way to confirm the authorship of this letter as being written by the hand of the Zodiac Killer, would be to draw parallels to previously unreleased Zodiac material by 1973. The December 16th 1969 Fairfield Letter is the only correspondence to exhibit any promise, with a comparison of "blood" to "bleeding", the knife-like shape smeared across the Benicia note, the droplets beneath the knife in both instances, and the positioning of the pseudonym "Zodiac" toward the right side of the blade-like design.

Other than this cursory observation, it simply depends on whether you believe that two Benicia High School youths were responsible for the note, having previously made numerous bomb threats upon the school, or the Zodiac Killer had reappeared and threatened Benicia, four years after the brutal murders of David Faraday and Betty Lou Jensen on December 20th 1968. I shall take the first option, but the decision is yours.

The nearly nude body of Nancy Darlene Feusi (23), a separated mother of five, was discovered by a fisherman at 6:30 am on July 22nd 1973 alongside Pleasant Grove Road and Steelhead Creek, approximately half a mile north of West Riego Road in Sutter County. Dressed in a miniskirt and bikini-style briefs, with a blouse discovered nearby, she had been brutally stabbed 29 times in the stomach, chest and arm in what appeared a sexually driven crime. Shoe prints and tire tracks were discovered close to where the young woman was found, opening up the possibility she was murdered elsewhere and transported to the scene of the crime. 

Earlier that morning she had been dancing at Plumbers Hall, 5841 Newman Court in East Sacramento, with her last sighting alive at 43rd Street and 11th Avenue, about 2 miles southwest of Plumbers Hall. This sighting was only 3 1/2 hours prior to her body being discovered alongside Pleasant Grove Road, 15 miles north. It was clearly evident she had been transported to the location she was ultimately found by a vehicle, which investigators surmised would have been heavily bloodstained. Therefore, the location of her murder was considered to lie elsewhere, possibly close to the area she was last seen alive.  

Below I have added the relevant locations regarding Nancy's last known movements that morning.   

The quickest route from downtown Sacramento to Pleasant Grove Road is via Interstate 5 and Highway 99, before turning east at the interchange of West Riego Road, traveling 2.74 miles to Pleasant Grove Road and then heading north for just half a mile to the body deposition site. Clearly, the murderer had many earlier opportunisties to dispose of her body on the 15-mile journey north, so one could be forgiven for believing that this location was familiar to the killer as a safe option. This opens up the possibility that the murderer was actually traveling home that morning and dropped off the body of the young woman, not only somewhere he had likely previously visited, but en route to his residence, slightly further north. Continuing north at the interchange for just 10 miles, brings you to the the census-designated place of East Nicolaus that may be familiar to some with respect to the murders of Koy Ien Saechao and Choy Fow Saelee.

On Tuesday April 22nd 1986, Laotian couple Koy Ien Saechao (48) and Choy Fow Saelee (40) were traveling back on the two-and-a-half hour journey to their residence in Dorman Road, Yuba City after visiting their son in a Merced CA hospital, situated in the area of the San Joaquin Valley of Northern California. They were only 45 minutes from home when it was believed they had opted to take a rest on the roadside edge (or ushered over by a second vehicle), near the interchange of Highway 99 and I-5 Sacramento and attacked without remorse. How the killer approached is open to question, but the assailant unleashed a barrage of gunfire into their car blowing out both front side windows, testimony to which, was the 15 small caliber shell casings scattered and retrieved from beside the vehicle. The couple suffered multiple shots to the head. Two weeks later, a letter arrived at the San Francisco Chronicle purportedly from the Zodiac Killer laying claim to the savage killings. There were reports in the newspaper that an unidentified "hitchiker" flagged down an East Nicolaus patrol officer and directed him to the murder site, although only describing it as a car accident. In the 1986 Letter the author stated "The Blue Meannies almost caught me", bringing forth the notion he was describing the encounter with the patrol officer and effectively taunting the police.   

The distance between the crime scenes (as the crow flies) of Koy Ien Saechao and Choy Fow Saelee, to the deposition site of Nancy Feusi, is just 8 miles - and on both occasions the perpetrator may have been heading to East Nicolaus or somewhere nearby. Of course, the two crimes are separated by thirteen years and therefore probably unrelated to one another, but it was important to put the murder of Nancy Feusi into perspective from a Zodiac standpoint.

Judith Hakari was a nurse at Sutter Hospital, who disappeared heading back to the Markston Apartments on March 7th 1970 and later discovered murdered. At 11:30 pm. Hakari calls her fiance to tell him she's leaving Sutter Memorial Hospital where she works as a nurse. By 1:30 in the morning, she has still not come home. Her fiance, waiting at her apartment, begins to worry. "He went out to the apartment complex parking lot and discovered her car was parked in the assigned space that she had," Links said. But Judith was nowhere to be seen. She was found one month later, strangled and bludgeoned to death. "Some hikers discovered a body in a shallow grave up in the town of Weimar, in Placer County. And during their investigation they determined that it was Judith Hakari," Links said.
Sutter Hospital is just two miles from the location where Nancy Feusi was last seen - although it appears the murderer in the respective cases headed in different directions to conceal the body.

Nancy Feusi was last seen at approximately 3:00 am on July 22nd 1973 and discovered at 6:30 am, just 3 1/2 hours later. The journey time by vehicle from 43rd Street and 11th Avenue in Sacramento to Pleasant Grove Road is about 30 minutes, thereby leaving a shortfall of 3 hours. Had she befriended her killer at Plumbers Hall while dancing and met her demise shortly afterwards? Had this been the case, it is likely the murderer headed to somewhere he was sure he wouldn't be spotted while disposing of the body, while minimizing the time he was driving around with a body in the bloodstained vehicle. The fact that he drove just 15 miles to this "out of the way" location, could suggest it was somebody familiar with the area and quite possibly somebody who didn't live too far beyond.