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. By the way, are the police having a good time with the code? If not, tell them to cheer up; when they do crack it, they will have me.
On the 4th of July I did not open the car door. The window was rolled down all ready. The boy was origionaly sitting in the front seat when I began fireing. When I fired the first shot at his head, he leaped backwards at the same time, thus spoiling my aim. He ended up on the back seat then the floor in back thashing out very violently with his legs; that's how I shot him in the knee. I did not leave the cene of the killing with squealling tires + raceing engine as described in the Vallejo paper. I drove away quite slowly so as not to draw attention to my car.
The man who told police that my car was brown was a negro about 40-45 rather shabbly dressed. I was in this phone booth having some fun with the Vallejo cop when he was walking by. When I hung the phone up the damn X@ thing began to ring & that drew his attention to me + my car.
In that epasode the police were wondering how I could shoot + hit my victims in the dark. They did not openly state this, but implied this by saying it was a well lit night + I could see silowets on the horizon. Bullshit that area is surrounded by high hills + trees. What I did was tape a small pencel flash light to the barrel of my gun. If you notice, in the center of the beam of light if you aim it at a wall or ceiling you will see a black or darck spot in the center of the circle of light about 3 to 6 inches across. When taped to a gun barrel, the bullet will strike in the center of the black dot in the light. All I had to do was spray them as if it was a water hose; there was no need to use the gun sights. I was not happy to see that I did not get front page coverage.
"Mageau was able to tell police only that the car door was torn open shortly after they had parked". Zodiac replied "On the 4th of July I did not open the car door. The window was rolled down all ready".
The gunman immediately let loose with a fusillade of shots. The girl was behind the wheel. Mageau fell outside the car on the passenger's side. Zodiac replied "The boy was origionaly sitting in the front seat when I began fireing".
"But he heard the car take off at a high rate of speed, peeling rubber and cutting corners. He wasn't sure, but he thought it was headed to the freeway".
Zodiac replied "I did not leave the cene of the killing with squealling tires + raceing engine as described in the Vallejo paper. I drove away quite slowly so as not to draw attention to my car".
"Lunblad explained the killer needed no artificial lighting for accuracy in shooting the girl, since she was running on a plateau and her body was silhouetted against the sky".
Zodiac replied "They did not openly state this, but implied this by saying it was a well lit night + I could see silowets on the horizon. Bullshit that area is surrounded by high hills + trees. What I did was tape a small pencel flash light to the barrel of my gun".
Bearing in mind the Zodiac Killer's coordnated responses to the newspapers above and his eagerness to follow developments as they unfolded, he would seemingly fail to notice that it was Michael Mageau who reported his car was brown on no less than five occasions. In fact, he had carefully whisked Michael Mageau away and replaced him with a "negro about 40-45, who was rather shabbly dressed". A negro male who was never mentioned once in any of the newspapers.
Why do you think the Zodiac Killer was transplanting the description of his vehicle as a "brown car" into the story at the payphone, as well as giving an excessive description of an eyewitness, who was "about 40-45 and rather shabbly dressed"? The Zodiac Killer was suggesting to us that somebody other than Michael Mageau had spotted him, and this negro male had also corroborated to police that his vehicle was brown. However, the Zodiac Killer wasn't telling us anything new in just confirming his vehicle was brown through the eyes of a second eyewitness - so what was the purpose of introducing this unknown eyewitness?
By concentrating on the description given by Zodiac of a "brown car", we are not considering the option of no car at all. His follow up statement of "When I hung the phone up the damn X@ thing began to ring & that drew his attention to me + my car" should have revealed that the killer is selling us a story. There was a conscious and deliberate effort to add "my car" to the end of that statement, when it was totally unnecessary to do so.
The Zodiac Killer never went into any descriptive detail about the age and attire of his victims, yet here, he is giving us an approximate age range for the eyewitness, along with an assessment to the quality of the man's attire. This smacks of a Zodiac Killer attempting to bring the eyewitness to life, by suggesting that he made a conscious evaluation of the negro male's age and clothing through observation. The addition of a man aged 40 to 45 and dressed rather shabbily, is drawing the observer into the story through the eyes of Zodiac. He is using overtly descriptive language and narration, totally unnecessary to the story, in order to sell you a believable eyewitness that just happened to notice his vehicle by the payphone. The use of the word "rather" (meaning: to a certain or significant extent or degree) is again suggestive of somebody who wanted you to believe they had taken the time to assess the appearance of the eyewitness. The word "rather" is a qualifier word and totally unnecessary in a correspondence that is supposed to be supplying extra details to police regarding his crimes. In fact, the story of the negro male appears a classic case of misdirection. The Zodiac Killer, by placing the eyewitness, the payphone and his vehicle into one neat bundle together, was hoping you would never consider the option he had traveled to the payphone that morning on foot.