Good questions!

In the USA today,with all the violence and shootings,etc, I am pretty sure most campuses are secure enough you need ID,or a card to swipe etc to go into any campus buildings,or at least,I hope this is the case. But back in the 60’s, I am pretty sure somebody could walk right off the street. Also of importance,IF Bates was killed by an RCC student, the student could have been much older than her (although I believe her Killer was around her age). In looking thru the RCC yearbooks, I see that several men that were students were in their late 20’s into their 30’s even.

Also,regardind the yearbooks,I looked at just about every student with the initials RH that were in the 63,64,65,and 66 yearbooks,and checked to see if any wound up in the Vallejo area,and I could not confirm any of them wound up in the Vallejo area,but Zodiac (if he owned the initials RH and wrote on the desk)may have gotten lucky yet again because there was no 1967 RCC yearbook to look at people or suspects,or those with the initials RH. The 67 yearbook WOULD HAVE BEEN the one Cheri would have appeared in, but they stopped making yearbooks after 1966. There were no yearbooks after that for RCC

Thanks Morph. I agree with you that her killer was very likely to have been Cheri Jo’s age because she felt comfortable enough to walk into that ally with him. Also, I have said before in other posts that if her killer were much older than her, say 35-40 at the time he killer her, then he would stick out like a sore thumb in a College Library.

But Morph, going back to the original question, do you know of any investigation done to check the records for books relating to creating Cipher Code, when they were checked out, and by who?

I doubt very much they looked into Cipher books checked out. I would imagine they looked at ALL books checked out the day Cheri went missing, but highly doubt they looked at cipher/code books from years before or after.

–On a side note…I also can’t help but wonder if that desk had come from another school in the district.

I doubt very much they looked into Cipher books checked out. I would imagine they looked at ALL books checked out the day Cheri went missing, but highly doubt they looked at cipher/code books from years before or after.

–On a side note…I also can’t help but wonder if that desk had come from another school in the district.

Well if Cheri Jo’s assailant was the same man who 3 years later went on to become ‘Zodiac’, then he had to have learned the art of Cipher Construction somewhere and if he was still young enough to be at college in 66, then that would tend to suggest that he wouldn’t likely have been in the armed services and studied code.

And Tahoe, I have often thought along the same lines regarding the desk. It seems that the poem is generally accepted by most that it was written about Cheri Jo’s murder. Theres no evidence of that. It doesn’t name her, nor refer to any specific details of the murder that would allow the reader to conclude it was written about Bates

I doubt very much they looked into Cipher books checked out. I would imagine they looked at ALL books checked out the day Cheri went missing, but highly doubt they looked at cipher/code books from years before or after.

–On a side note…I also can’t help but wonder if that desk had come from another school in the district.

Well if Cheri Jo’s assailant was the same man who 3 years later went on to become ‘Zodiac’, then he had to have learned the art of Cipher Construction somewhere and if he was still young enough to be at college in 66, then that would tend to suggest that he wouldn’t likely have been in the armed services and studied code.

And Tahoe, I have often thought along the same lines regarding the desk. It seems that the poem is generally accepted by most that it was written about Cheri Jo’s murder. Theres no evidence of that. It doesn’t name her, nor refer to any specific details of the murder that would allow the reader to conclude it was written about Bates

If the Bates letter writer used ciphers,they might have checked out cipher books

Morph I know the Bates author never used Chiphers. What I mean is, after the alleged link was made between Cheri Jo’s murder/desk writing to Zodiac 5 years later, didn’t they then consider it then? I know it would have been a long shot. Obviously these were the days before computers to store and log details so it had to be done manually but you never know.

I mean I’ve always wondered why Zodiac, if he did kill Bates, never bragged about Cheri Jo’s murder before Avery’s article appeared claiming a link between the two. Given that we know Zodiac was always ‘very happy to supply even more information’ about his ‘good times’, there can only be two reasons why he wouldn’t brag that I can thin of.
1. He didn’t brag because he thought that by bragging about being Cheri Jo’s murderer as ‘Zodiac’ could lead investigators to discover something significant in Riverside.
2. He didn’t brag because he didn’t do it.

Again, putting my own belief’s aside that the answer is probably option 2, and say for the purpose of this post, it’s option 1.
What if Zodiac’s reasoning on not bragging about Cheri Jo’s murder in Riverside now he was ‘Zodiac’ was because as Zodiac he had sent Coded Ciphers, a form of communication he had learned from studying books hired from the very place Bates had encountered her murderer and was concerned that if SFPD asked for a list of the peoples names that had rented these books, his name would be on that short list?

Just speculation, theory and assumption I know, but what else would there be to stop this media craving, attention seeking braggat from taking credit for murdering Bates?

Good points,and I think you hit the nail on the head. Either he didn’t kill Bates and that’s why he never mentioned her, or he did killer or her (or at least wrote the letters in her case)and was afraid to own up to it because he feared being caught. I personally think he at least wrote the letters and possibly killed her too,why else did he take so long to take credit for it once the newspapers connected the Bates case to him? If he wanted to take credit for it,but he didnt ever have anything to do with her case,he would have owned up to it as soon as the papers connected the case,but he waited. Waiting is something he would do if he was nervously awaiting a knock at his door.

I think any fellow RCC or RAMONS HS students of Bates that wound up in Vallejo during the Z years should be considered as persons of interest,and thats a short list of people. I found one strong candidate who was a fellow classmate of hers class of 66,and used addresses in Vallejo up until 1974(when the Z letters stopped).In 1974, he moved back down to the Riverside area.

Yes I agree with you that Zodiac had been known to withold info if he thought it may increase his chance of capture. But Zodiac also said: "Even though I talked about killing school children with one. It just wouldn’t doo to move in on someone else’s teritory" Here he lets us know he may ‘Talk about killing school children", but that’s all it was, talk. He then states that it wouldn’t do to move in on another teritory.

I mean when once he had decided to admit to being Bates murderer in writing to the Chronicle, then the cat is out of the bag, so to speak. Why wouldn’t he then go on to give details of the homicide to prove that what he is now claiming is true? In Zodiac’s first ever letter to the Chronicle, in the very first paragraph, he writes: ‘Dear Editor This is the murderer of the 2 teenagers last Christmass at Lake Herman + the girl on the 4th of July near the golf course in Vallejo To prove I killed them I shall state some facts which only I + the police know. ‘ Then gives a bullet point presentation of evidence.
Then when LE responded in the Chronicle, and on the news, that they had received letter from someone claiming responsibility but that they could not say these letters were genuine without the the writer giving more evidence (A ploy the police used just to get him to write again), Zodiac gleefully complied with their request and opened the letter asserting "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"

My point is, once Zodiac had decided to admit to the allegations made by Avery in the Chronicle, that being that he had killed CJB, then he may as well have given the details also to prove it, as he seemed only to happy to do when police said they doubted his involvement in another homicide case, one thay we know he was responsible for having committed.

And Finally, you have Zodiac’s own words. Long before Avery’s ‘Riverside’ article was pubished, Zodiac stated the following: "To prove that I am the Zodiac, Ask the Vallejo cop about my electric gun sight which I used to start my collecting of slaves." We all know Slaves was Zodiac terminology for his victims, and that he claimed to have used the ‘Gun Sight’ at Lake Herman Road. So, Zodiac is himself suggesting he stated collecting slaves (started his murderous campaign) by using a gun sight (The Lake Herman Road Murders).

There is a way to know if Z was or wasn’t responsible. Just compare the DNA found on the Z letters, to the DNA from the hair found in Cheri Jo’s hand.

RPD didn’t do that for the same reason they did not compare the DNA: because they refuse to believe Zodiac had anything to do with it.

I believe this was always their stance even from the beginning. Yes, someone from that department contacted SFPD about the case, but I don’t remember seeing anything about them actually investigating the Zodiac case from their end. It all went one way with the other investigators.

RPD didn’t do that for the same reason they did not compare the DNA: because they refuse to believe Zodiac had anything to do with it.

I believe this was always their stance even from the beginning. Yes, someone from that department contacted SFPD about the case, but I don’t remember seeing anything about them actually investigating the Zodiac case from their end. It all went one way with the other investigators.

PLUS,not sure if they are even sure the DNA from their Z letters actually belongs to Z

RPD didn’t do that for the same reason they did not compare the DNA: because they refuse to believe Zodiac had anything to do with it.

I believe this was always their stance even from the beginning. Yes, someone from that department contacted SFPD about the case, but I don’t remember seeing anything about them actually investigating the Zodiac case from their end. It all went one way with the other investigators.

PLUS,not sure if they are even sure the DNA from their Z letters actually belongs to Z

That’s why I love DNA. The only piece of criminal evidence in the World that is both a scientific break-through and fantastic, solid and unarguable physical evidence a prosecution can have in their case, aswell as it also being completely and utterly usless lol. Unless the offender you are seeking is on the data-base, then the DNA is like an airplane without wings….usless.

But the one thing I have never understood is why, if they have tis partial DNA profile from the Z Envelope/Letter, why they havn’t/Won’t enter it into CODIS? As we all know, Zodiac’s specific DNA doesn’t have to necessarily be in the CODIS system to flush him out. Because close family members share very similar DNA, if Zodiac’s brother/sister/Son/Daughter/nephew/niece was in the system, then Z’s were added and a scan of the system peformed for any matches, the machine would find, recognise and bring up any DNA profile that closely matches that of the target DNA.

WC: "But the one thing I have never understood is why, if they have this partial DNA profile from the Z Envelope/Letter, why they haven’t/Won’t enter it into CODIS?"

AK Wilks: You MUST have a DNA sample with at least 9 markers for entry into CODIS. A 4 marker sample cannot be entered. In any event, the SFPD no longer has any confidence in this 4 marker sample actually being from the Zodiac. But even if they did, you must have at least 9 of the 13 markers for entry into CODIS.

WC: "But the one thing I have never understood is why, if they have this partial DNA profile from the Z Envelope/Letter, why they haven’t/Won’t enter it into CODIS?"

AK Wilks: You MUST have a DNA sample with at least 9 markers for entry into CODIS. A 4 marker sample cannot be entered. In any event, the SFPD no longer has any confidence in this 4 marker sample actually being from the Zodiac. But even if they did, you must have at least 9 of the 13 markers for entry into CODIS.

My apologies AK, I remember you telling me this a few months back.