Tahoe27- "The FBI did not conclude the letters were that of Zodiac, no matter what spin one wants to put on it"

But, they did say that based on charcteristics and clues in the writing, one person may have prepared both the Z letters & Bates writing. That’s a far cry from agreeing with Shimoda, and if anything, supports Morrill. To be fair, you can’t spin that.

And I agree with Tahoe, PaulAverly, please don’t resort to immature posts, or jabs just to get your point across.

I agree…one person may have written it. That is why it’s questioned in the first place.

I agree…one person may have written it. That is why it’s questioned in the first place.

If one person wrote it all, then every letter is bogus, and have nothing to do with the murders, or every one is connected in both Riverside & Z case. Again, that’s if the FBI is correct in the possibility 1 single person did all the letters.

The SFPD also says "we have attributed SIX victims to Zodiac since 1966". Which includes Bates as a Zodiac victim.

They – the SFPD as a department – clearly believed in the Riverside connection. This is well known, I think. But I’ve always been under the impression that certain investigators were more skeptical – and other departments, for that matter. Do we know what VPD and Napa thought about this? Also, someone presumably had Shimoda (and possibly Morrill’s successor) look at this material – which indicates that someone wasn’t satisfied that M’s conclusion was the right one. I don’t see Shimoda (who was the USP expert) inserting himself in this on his own initiative.

Anyway, what did they base this on? That’s the question. Clearly to a significant extent Morrill’s verdict, given the importance they attached to clearing up the Shimoda Vs Morrill business.

The latter also says something about the general importance LE (look at the CADOJ report) attached to handwriting/printing (the report mentioned goes as far as to conclude that handwriting is THE most important tool available for clearing suspects). This is hardly a modern point of view – which is worth pointing out here.

Beyond the writing, then – what does the Riverside connection consist of?

M.O.? Seems odd to me at first glance. Bates seems to have been killed in considerable rage. The interaction which must have taken place between killer and victim does not resemble anything the canonical Z later engaged in.

The communications? Clear similarities in words and misspellings. Clear discrepancies in the nature of these communications. The Confession is typewritten. It is written in a style which deviates from the known Z letters more than it resembles them. The notes are not Z like at all. The canonical Z never sent anything of the sort to either the press or private persons.

The desktop: Here, more than ever, I wish we had reports. What did they actually think about this? Morrill confirmed the writing – that’s one thing. But what about the nature of this – if it was written by Z – truly bizarre communication? Did they think that Z was connected to the library? Or that he just wandered in there and scratched a poem on a desk – intending…what? That it should be discovered and attributed to him?

Yah…I would think by today’s standards she would never be considered an included victim based off the writings alone. While the writings may have been assumed/concluded (whatever) to be Zodiac’s, she would not have automatically been considered his murder victim.

Regardless Cheri IS connected to the Zodiac case. Whether one believes she was killed by Zodiac, he only wrote the letters, and even if he had nothing to do with it at all.

The SFPD also says "we have attributed SIX victims to Zodiac since 1966". Which includes Bates as a Zodiac victim.

They – the SFPD as a department – clearly believed in the Riverside connection. This is well known, I think. But I’ve always been under the impression that certain investigators were more skeptical – and other departments, for that matter. Do we know what VPD and Napa thought about this? Also, someone presumably had Shimoda (and possibly Morrill’s successor) look at this material – which indicates that someone wasn’t satisfied that M’s conclusion was the right one. I don’t see Shimoda (who was the USP expert) inserting himself in this on his own initiative.

Anyway, what did they base this on? That’s the question. Clearly to a significant extent Morrill’s verdict, given the importance they attached to clearing up the Shimoda Vs Morrill business.

The latter also says something about the general importance LE (look at the CADOJ report) attached to handwriting/printing (the report mentioned goes as far as to conclude that handwriting is THE most important tool available for clearing suspects). This is hardly a modern point of view – which is worth pointing out here.

Beyond the writing, then – what does the Riverside connection consist of?

M.O.? Seems odd to me at first glance. Bates seems to have been killed in considerable rage. The interaction which must have taken place between killer and victim does not resemble anything the canonical Z later engaged in.

The communications? Clear similarities in words and misspellings. Clear discrepancies in the nature of these communications. The Confession is typewritten. It is written in a style which deviates from the known Z letters more than it resembles them. The notes are not Z like at all. The canonical Z never sent anything of the sort to either the press or private persons.

The desktop: Here, more than ever, I wish we had reports. What did they actually think about this? Morrill confirmed the writing – that’s one thing. But what about the nature of this – if it was written by Z – truly bizarre communication? Did they think that Z was connected to the library? Or that he just wandered in there and scratched a poem on a desk – intending…what? That it should be discovered and attributed to him?

To touch on your points:

*The savage stabbing of Cheri resembles Berryessa at least as far as a knife being uses

*Riverside communications clearly have similar words & misspellings, on that we agree. Confession is typewritten. Could that not be a young or not yet confident Z afraid to use his real handwriting? Not Z like at all? I disagree, use of the word ‘game’ along with same choice of words & misspellings, is indeed similar to Z in my opinion.

*The writing of the desktop, confirmed by the state’s top writing expert, and as we have shown, apparently backed by the FBI that certainly thought it was possible one Author wrote all the letters.
The desktop writing was discovered & reported by chance. There’s no way the Author of it could know it would ever be linked to the Bates case. Yet it was. I find the Author of it wandering in to the school to leave some scant clue to be found and connected is highly unlikely. It’s more likely that somebody associated with the Library as a staff member, student, etc, made the poem.

In short, in Riverside,you have the confession letter that uses similar words & phrases that Z used, and it mentions calling the police & publishing the letter. You have writing in the Riverside college Library that is matched to Z. You have the Bates had to die letters with extra postage, and Z like symbol. We are not looking at one clue & linking Z to Riverside, we are looking at them as a whole.These things all seem to indicate Z operating in Riverside.

Morf: The NOTES are not Z like at all. The Confession contains several similarities (choice of words, misspellings) – I obviously don’t deny that. But the notes are not Z like. They are extremely brief and extremely personal – nothing the affirmed Z ever did resembles this type of communication.

Bates versus LB: Yes, the stabbing is a similarity. But surely the most important part is the nature of the attack as such – which constitutes a discrepancy, not a similarity. There doesn’t seem to be anything personal about LB. And the violence/rage on display isn’t comparable at all.

I agree, as you know, that IF the desktop is Z’s work it’s very likely that he was connected to the library, and very unlikely that he was a random passer-by (the latter strikes me as pretty much impossible, actually).

My question goes to the views of the SFPD, however. Did THEY consider it highly unlikely that Z did NOT have a connection to the library?

Anyway, here’s a different sort of problem (which illustrates the generally unclear nature of the whole Riverside business):

Bates’ murder – the details, what we can surmise as regards the interaction between killer and victim – indicates that it was personal, that the killer knew Bates. Agreed?

The Confession writer also knew Bates – well enough that he had suffered several brush-offs over the years, etc.

Now, would the killer (who seems to betray a knowledge of his victim through his actions) sit down and write a letter in which he confesses to having known Bates? To put it facetiously, why didn’t he just sign the letter while he was at it?

There’s something there which simply does not add up.

In a Z context, what this amounts to is:

If Z killed Bates, I find it very unlikely that he wrote the Confession. And if he didn’t, the similarities of words and spellings are – clearly – coincidental.

The alternative is obvious: He didn’t kill Bates – but he did write the Confession. That sort of works if we want to hold on to the Riverside connection. But it begs several questions in its own right. To write a fake Confession – to insert oneself into a murder case – is not unheard of. But as far as I know, this sort of behavior generally indicates a different type of person than someone who goes on to become a (serial) killer himself. At the very least, it must have serious implications for our understanding of Z.

Another problem/conundrum:

Let’s say Z did the whole thing. What have we? Disregarding for the moment the precise nature of the communications, we have a) a murder + communications (which smacks of Z) and b) the fact that Z does not acknowledge any of this before Avery brings up the connection (which doesn’t smack of Z at all).

What we know about Z is that he kills someone, and then goes on to take credit for it, offering up some form of proof that he did it. We also know that he occasionally claims to have committed crimes he does NOT offer any proof for, and that these latter are generally regarded as empty boasts on his part.

(More to follow – this is getting too long winded).

The Zodiac only really exists on paper , for without the letters, I feel none of these murders would be linked.

The Zodiac only really exists on paper , for without the letters, I feel none of these murders would be linked.

But that’s what does in fact link the cases, is the writing, along with the fact claims all the Victims.

@Norse, a single question for you, with either a yes or no answer. Do you believe that Morrill was wrong about the desktop poem link to Z?

Faulty logic.You claim the author can’t be Bates killer because no one would admit to knowing her and might as well sign their name. The murder looked personal and I’m sure RPD focused intently on those that knew her personally whether they believed the confession or not. On the night of the Stine murder Zodiac was SEEN by kids and/or stopped by police yet he still claimed that crime in writing. Not a fact, but quite possible that Zodiac knew Cheri and it was personal. Because every murder wasn’t an emotional rage doesn’t discount them all being done by the same man. If you believe the writings, Cheri was the only one mentioned in a personal way. AGAIN, just possibilities not fact. As the SFPD felt Bates was a Zodiac crime my thoughts aren’t without merit. Side note:" Inconclusive" keeps being thrown around as a nail in the coffin NO. It means unsure. Could be could not be.

Side note:" Inconclusive" keeps being thrown around as a nail in the coffin NO. It means unsure. Could be could not be.

It is? By whom? For my money you’re absolutely right: It means unsure. That is all I have ever claimed.

@Norse, a single question for you, with either a yes or no answer. Do you believe that Morrill was wrong about the desktop poem link to Z?

Yes.

PS That’s my personal opinion, though, morf – bear that in mind. I’m not saying it’s the only possible/logical answer based on what we know.

Faulty logic.You claim the author can’t be Bates killer because no one would admit to knowing her and might as well sign their name.

I don’t believe I claimed that. But if I sounded like I claimed that the writer can’t be the murderer, then I apologize for not making myself clear.

I’m saying that it strikes me as very odd that a murderer who seemingly knew his victim (there are several indications that he did) would confess to this in writing – unless he wanted to be caught. And the rest of the letter doesn’t give that impression – nor has anyone been caught, for that matter (which arguably says more about the cops than anything else, but that’s another story).