The first interesting aspect of the December 20th 1968 murders was that the bullet fired into David Faraday did not contain the same class characteristics as the other seven submitted bullets. What the Department of Justice report 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  had 6 right hand groove class characteristics.' Item  was the bullet recovered from David Faraday.
This doesn't categorically separate this bullet as being fired from a second weapon, but it certainly opens up the possibility, as it couldn't be definitively linked to the other seven bullets. Furthermore, only nine casings were documented in the police report and the Department of Justice report, when clearly ten casings were ejected from the weaponry that night and marked in the police sketches. So why was this tenth casing, in the police report, not mentioned as being removed from the crime scene at Lake Herman Road, and why was the tenth casing not examined at the Department of Justice crime laboratory.
In all likelihood, it is because this casing was the one discovered on the front passenger side floorboard of the Rambler, either left in situ purposely or inadvertently, but which would ultimately became separated from the other nine. Having never been tested, we will never know if this 'missing' tenth casing matches the other nine from a ballistics standpoint. Had it featured unique characteristics, then there is the strong possibility that this casing could be the one ejected from the bullet fired into David Faraday's brain, as this was the only bullet to not be categorically linked the other seven. This would open up the notion of a second weapon that night and likely a second shooter, but without the tenth casing being unearthed, this remains just speculation. http://www.zodiacciphers.com/zodiac-news/lake-herman-road-the-ballistics-report
It is easy to scrutinize every word the author of the Zodiac letters penned and interpret the wording in a multitude of different ways. One such example is present in the 'Debut of Zodiac' letter, received by the San Francisco Examiner on August 4th 1969.
Imagine that two attackers were present at Lake Herman Road, and as inferred above, one was responsible for the close quarter execution of David Faraday, the other was responsible for the remaining nine shots. In other words, the second shooter had a containing role, securing David Faraday as he left the Rambler. The assailant who murdered Betty Lou Jensen was the author of the 'Debut of Zodiac' letter and wrote "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."
The problem is, he didn't 'spray them', he only sprayed Betty Lou Jensen, but he is simply writing from his perspective, not his accomplice's, who may have clinically murdered David Faraday with a single bullet, suggested at the beginning of this article.
Another example of interpretation can be found in the wording on the first three letters mailed on July 31st 1969, where the author states accompanying part one of the cipher "the other 2 parts have been mailed to the S.F. Examiner + the S.F. Chronicle," but on part two and three of the cipher the author states "the other 2 parts of this cipher are being mailed to the editors of the Vallejo Times and SF Examiner". and uses the present tense of "are being mailed". On all three correspondences the author is veering towards the third person perspective. This is not like the Zodiac, who would usually not fail to refer to himself, such as "I have mailed the other two parts of the cipher." Clearly though, this is down to the subjectivity of the reader and the dissection of such material.
Did these two individuals reappear just over six months later, both of whom were possibly sighted and recalled by Michael Mageau, who survived the horrific onslaught at Blue Rock Springs Park on July 4th 1969. Michael Mageau would recount two significant sightings that night. Firstly the vehicle that pulled up alongside Darlene Ferrin's brown Corvair, and either this vehicle returning five minutes later to the rear of their Corvair, or a second vehicle now entering the scene, implying that two males may be involved in the crime. Michael Mageau stated in the police report "Shortly after this and about 5 minutes before the shooting occurred, a vehicle pulled into the lot, coming from the direction of Springs Road and Vallejo. The driver turned the lights off on the car and pulled around to the left or east side of their car, approximately 6 or 8 feet away and sat there for a minute. He asked Dea if she knew who it was and she stated 'Oh, never mind'."
The Zodiac Killer appeared bold and brazen, particularly at Lake Berryessa and Presidio Heights, where he took enormous risks beyond what was required to execute his murders. The wearing of an elaborate costume, the writing on the car door, the murder of Paul Stine in the heart of San Francisco, that included the tearing of Paul Stine's shirt, yet here, if we contend that both these sightings by Michael Mageau were of the Zodiac Killer, then the hesitancy looks out of place. When the first vehicle pulled into the parking lot, it was empty, other than Darlene's Corvair. Why not pull up behind the intended victims, as in the second instance, and begin the attack. It could be argued that the first vehicle, that pulled up alongside the Corvair was a totally innocent motorist, but the parking lot was totally empty, so why pull alongside the only other vehicle and extinguish the car's lights for upwards of a minute. This could be construed as suspicious activity in the run up to the attack at Blue Rock Springs, in similar fashion to Lake Herman Road, and again, as with Lake Herman Road, this person, if innocent, never came forward as an eyewitness to this crime, and has never been traced. Three significant eyewitnesses over three murders, that all failed to make themselves available.
We do not know exactly what alerted the three teenagers to the unfolding events outside their home that night, but it most certainly was not the gunshot, as they stated they heard no firearm being discharged. Therefore it cannot be with certainty, that the man they observed in the front passenger seat of the taxicab was actually the killer of Paul Stine. In fact we do not know exactly how long the taxicab was present at the intersection of Washington and Cherry Street prior to the teenagers looking out of their upstairs window. We can only determine that the person observed inside the taxicab was likely responsible for the removal of the shirt piece and the wiping down of the taxicab.
It is perfectly feasible that two persons were inside Paul Stine's taxicab as it approached the corner of Washington and Cherry. The first person shot Paul Stine and immediately left the scene, taking the 'smoking gun' with him. The second person remained to secure the shirt piece and wipe down the taxicab. Had the second person still been inside the taxicab as police approached, he could claim to be a witness to the murder or aftermath, and seeing a taxicab driver had been injured or shot, had entered the taxicab to assist the driver. After all this accomplice was devoid of any firearm and incriminating gunshot residue, so how could he be the shooter. The tearing of any shirt could be attributed to first aid, acquiring material to staunch the blood loss. However, as police had not arrived in time, the back up plan was not needed and the accomplice headed north along Cherry Street.
It would have been an extremely audacious act, to have shot a taxicab driver in a built up area, only yards from nearby residences and then taken the time to carefully tear a rectangular section of Paul Stine's shirt, while still in possession of the only item that would inextricably link you to the crime - the smoking gun. The same could be said of remaining at the scene after the Lake Berryessa double stabbing and taking the time to write on the door of Bryan Hartnell's 1956 White Karmann Ghia. Unless both of these tasks were performed by an accomplice, thereby reducing the risk factor of each crime.
It is actually impossible to disprove that two people were involved in the Zodiac crimes, as it is for multiple co-conspirators. It is equally impossible to prove a lone killer in all four confirmed attacks, it simply boils down to what you believe.
The murderer crafted an elaborate costume for the attack on Cecelia Shepard and Bryan Hartnell on September 27th 1969, but the creation of the 'Zodiac Killer' just prior to August 4th 1969, may have been the greatest disguise of all.