Thanx morf….my confidence in hand writing analysis is somewhat variable….its not an exact science as we well know…step above psychics though in my opinion..i generally buy into morelli’s analysis though..its the best we have and he does appear to know his stuff…i will just take travelers word on this at face value as he is one of the best in articulating his findings…damn good analysis he or she provides so thumbs up to traveler

The other thing thst has irked me over the years is that damn watch band size…the 2 sammich makers still in the snoot residence have a 6 an 7inch wrist size…snoots himself is an 8….this in my mind shows the perp was a smaller frame size…if the glove dont fit you must acquit sorta thing…..i have tossed around the idea maybe the perp had a younger brother and just grabbed the wrong watch..therfore it may have fell out of the perprs pocket and was not ripped off the perps wrist as is reported and widely believed…ill stop rambling..

I agree with everything Morf said above. Yes handwriting analysis, even by trained law enforcement professionals, is not a perfect exact science. But it is certainly worth some weight and serious consideration. Particularly when you can also look at the excellent work of someone like Trav and see for yourself many very clear matches and similarities. Some are quite astounding IMO.

Then you have the other factors, Morf mentioned the Z like symbol, also there is use of the words twich, the game, etc. And the mailing of 3 letters, mailings on anniversaries, etc. Any one thing alone might be coincidence, but when you look at all the evidence – handwriting, word usage, Z like symbol, postal traits, MO, etc., collectively IMO it’s quite compelling.

Two things: 1. I have never understood the stubborn insistence of what I call the "Bay Gang" that Bates’ killer was not, and could not, have been Zodiac. Sixties California was a highly mobile society, especially the young. It was nothing to drive a couple of hundred miles on a lark; and, remember, gas was cheap then, and most cars muscled. Nor am I aware of two Z murders occurring at the same time, hundreds of miles apart. 2. I could be unfair, but I’ve always suspected RPD, once committed to "Bob Barnett", was afraid to reverse itself and be considered incompetent. They seem almost pathological in their intransigence, and are more concerned that Bates’ killer not be Zodiac than that he be identified, whoever he is.

I talked about this before in questioning the phone call. That document doesn’t clear it up at all, since it doesn’t state the information that RPD has, only what they have to say about the letter. In other words, when the detective says the letter confirmed things the killer knew, there are two different scenarios to interpret that as:

1. The letter confirmed things that the killer knew, such as place a phone call, which are factually correct with the information RPD has.

2.The letter offers information that the writer is claiming the killer knew, such as placing a phone call. The detective is merely quoting what the letter said, not verifying it’s factual correctness against his own information.

Another huge problem with this is even if it’s true, without details it doesn’t mean anything. It only means that the caller and the letter writer are the same, but doesn’t prove that the call was made by the killer.

It also says that Cheri was killed at 6:00 PM. That doesn’t sound right to me.

One thing most are forgetting is the manner of death details. Of course I’d like to know more about what the caller said, but let’s read the language in the document. I think it states things pretty clearly.

"Other points in the letter, such as details of the manner of the murder and the call to the police department , made it appear that the writer of the letter is actually the murderer."

I read that as saying there was a call to RPD and the writer was correct about the call. I also read it as saying the writer was correct about the details he stated, such as small knife, knife broke, kicked her in the head, etc.

I don’t see how a hoax letter writer could be correct on all these points. RPD was convinced based on the above facts that the writer was the killer. I’m open to other possibilities, as long as their based on evidence and something other than just the writer making several lucky guesses that all proved true.

"Other points in the letter, such as details of the manner of the murder and the call to the police department , made it appear that the writer of the letter is actually the murderer."

Alright, let’s look closely at this – crucial – part. What this sentence means is either:

a) that the detective advises the recipient that certain details in the letter – such as the phone call – indicate that the writer is the killer. In other words, he confirms – albeit not directly and unambiguously – that these details check out, for instance that a phone call was indeed placed.

Or,

b) that the detective advises the recipient that a letter was received by the police in which the writer included certain details – such as the phone call – which were intended to make it appear as though the writer was the killer.

In the b) interpretation the detective simply states what the writer did – or intended to do – without commenting on whether the details check out. And that seems odd to me. Let’s paraphrase it to make it clearer:

“We received this letter. The writer said he placed a phone call to our department after the murder. He included the phone detail in order to prove that he really was the killer.”

Well, alright. But did he actually place the call? That’s the question – and if the b) interpretation is correct, the detective doesn’t answer this question. Which strikes me as very odd.

Now for the possibility that the detective is – in fact – referring to a different phone call (the “horrible scream” call). This has to be considered, I suppose. But then we have to assume that the police were of the opinion that the “horrible scream” call was placed by the killer – and not a concerned citizen. If not it would seem pointless to even mention it.

Let’s be clear: The “horrible scream” call can only feature in the a) interpretation – in which the detective is confirming that a call was indeed received. If this call was the “horrible scream” one, we have to conclude that the detective was of the opinion that this call was made by the killer (if not, he would not have mentioned it in the first place, as it doesn’t confirm anything).

So, if we want to go with the a) interpretation and still maintain that the writer was not the killer, we have to assume that the police themselves were mistaken about the “horrible scream” call: They erroneously concluded that this call was placed by the killer – but it wasn’t. However, if this is the case, we’re faced with a coincidence which is somewhat remarkable: The Confession writer is a prankster who includes a fictional (from his perspective) phone call in his letter – whereas the police on their part receives a real phone call they mistakenly conclude is made by the killer.

Confused? Well, so am I. Nothing new there, though.

A hoaxter in Riverside, would have everything he needed from the news articles to hoax the confession letter only a day or two after the killing.

He would know how the car was disabled. He would know that the police received "an anonymous phone call". Neither of these details makes the writer the killer. We could argue that the mention of knife size or head kicking could be important if they in fact match the evidence.

Well that’s assuming the call they refer to is the scream call, which was mentioned in the papers. RPD says the writer stating he made a call to them is an important part of convincing them the writer is the killer, as they did get a call from a male. They tell the FBI this male writer is correct about a call, a circumstance they indicate only the actual caller would know.

And since the call was that night of the murder before it hit the papers, RPD seems confident in telling the FBI it appears to them the writer is the actual killer, so can they examine the letter for evidence.

Also RPD says the writer’s details about manner of murder are all correct. And we know most match the facts we do know. The knife was small, IIRC a 5 inch blade. Her face did have bruises and contusions as noted in the autopsy report. And apparently RPD thought the rest matched as well, like broken knife, etc., and they indicate that to the FBI.

A hoaxer would probably think it was a large knife, or just play it safe and say medium. How does he correctly guess small? A knife murder would not usually involves bruises to the head. But the writer says he kicked her in the head and RPD confirms that and the autopsy report shows facial bruises and contusions. He is right again.

IMO it’s just too many items to have just been 6 lucky guesses, and he goes 6 for 6. There may be some small room to imagine posible scenarios – the writer was a cop, a reporter close to the police or in some other fashion found out inside information like autopsy details, the phone call, etc. I don’t think any of those are very realistic. I think it is very likely to almost certain that the Riverside writer was the Bates killer. But to each his own.

It’s interesting to note that in the report he doesn’t say anything about the car. That apparently was not considered insider information.

I’m not completely familiar with the details of the autopsy report. Bruising to the face could be caused by many things during the attack. Was there a report of blunt force trauma to the head? I don’t seem to recall that, and to me that weighed against the detail about the kick. Sure, she could’ve been kicked, but it’s not definitive. You say that it’s injuries to the head that aren’t stab wounds, and that is a pretty lucky guess if so. I’ll call that one a grey area.

You call a five inch blade a "small" knife? I would call such one inch or less. A pocket knife. That’s clearly subjective. If he said a five inch knife, that would be something. But no.

But the knife breaking off is not as speculative. The writer said the knife broke when he stabbed her. That would be clear in the autopsy, and what happened to the broken knife? The fragment should be on the body and/or at the scene, and that should be accounted for. I don’t remember that one. That’s a big one.

Here’s the autopsy report:

It used to be on Howard Davis’ site: http://www.thezodiacmansonconnection.com/autop_bates.htm l”> https://web.archive.org/web/20120424133 … bates.html

My notes say he credited Tom Voigt and Bob Webster for getting the autopsy report.

Mike Butterfield has a copy as well: http://www.zodiackillerfacts.com/galler … p?album=90

But the knife breaking off is not as speculative. The writer said the knife broke when he stabbed her. That would be clear in the autopsy, and what happened to the broken knife? The fragment should be on the body and/or at the scene, and that should be accounted for.

Well, he never claimed it was the blade that broke. Maybe he was just trying to say that he stabbed her so hard, the knife as a whole (maybe the handle) was damaged. Everyone assumes he had to be talking about the blade breaking off, but why?

Thanks doranchak. It notes abrasions, petochise (small blood vessel bursts), swelling and other facial injuries not caused by a knife and consistent with a kick to the head. RPD said the writer’s details were correct, so I take that to include a kick to the head and the knife (blade or handle as up2something notes) being broke.

To me the bottom line is RPD tells the FBI the writer was correct about the "details of the manner of death." Some of those details we can partially or totally confirm by our inexpert reading of the autopsy report or other documents, like a kick to the head and small knife. For the rest, like the knife being broke in some way, and other things, the fact that RPD tells the FBI the writer was correct and therefore is actually the killer is satisfactory to me.

Thanks doranchak. It notes abrasions, petochise (small blood vessel bursts), swelling and other facial injuries not caused by a knife and consistent with a kick to the head. RPD said the writer’s details were correct, so I take that to include a kick to the head and the knife (blade or handle as up2something notes) being broke.

A big item I missed is the writer claims he cut her throat. Indeed the report notes the interior neck has an extensive and irregular laceration also affecting the jugular. A hoaxer reading about a "stabbing" makes a bold claim that the throat is cut, and once again he was right.

To me the bottom line is RPD tells the FBI the writer was correct about the "details of the manner of death." Some of those details we can partially or totally confirm by our inexpert reading of the autopsy report or other documents, like a kick to the head and throat cut. For the rest, like the knife being broke in some way, and other things, the fact that RPD tells the FBI the writer was correct and therefore is actually the killer is satisfactory to me.

That’s a great point. I seem to recall articles mentioning her being almost decapitated,or am I thinking police reports? If a news article mentions decapitating her, then the slashed throat would be a no brainer for a hoaxer.

Several articles predating the letter mention that her throat was slit.

http://www.officialcoldcaseinvestigatio … iac-Victim
http://www.zodiackillersite.com/viewtop … =33&t=1455
http://www.zodiackillerfacts.com/galler … ?album=155
https://www.evernote.com/shard/s1/sh/ee … b003b1bd27

Thanks doranchak. It notes abrasions, petochise (small blood vessel bursts), swelling and other facial injuries not caused by a knife and consistent with a kick to the head. RPD said the writer’s details were correct, so I take that to include a kick to the head and the knife (blade or handle as up2something notes) being broke.

A big item I missed is the writer claims he cut her throat. Indeed the report notes the interior neck has an extensive and irregular laceration also affecting the jugular. A hoaxer reading about a "stabbing" makes a bold claim that the throat is cut, and once again he was right.

To me the bottom line is RPD tells the FBI the writer was correct about the "details of the manner of death." Some of those details we can partially or totally confirm by our inexpert reading of the autopsy report or other documents, like a kick to the head and throat cut. For the rest, like the knife being broke in some way, and other things, the fact that RPD tells the FBI the writer was correct and therefore is actually the killer is satisfactory to me.

That’s a great point. I seem to recall articles mentioning her being almost decapitated,or am I thinking police reports? If a news article mentions decapitating her, then the slashed throat would be a no brainer for a hoaxer.

Nope, even the slashed throat was mentioned as seen in this 10/31/66 Article