The RPD suspect was cleared through DNA and fingerprints. Given that Cheri Jo put up a pretty good fight and the DNA was taken from under her nails then their suspect could not be the killer. The only way would be either for him to have had an accomplice or been the one that planned but not carried out the murder. My understand is that he was a suspect based on things that Cheri wrote about him but no actual evidence. (There’s also hearsay about him making threatening remarks about some girl, but I’m not sure that was confirmed) He denies ever dating Cheri or trying to date her and stated he was dating her friend instead. Their suspect has not resided in this country for a long time. I don’t recall where he lives, possibly the Phillipeans?? I do remember someone believing that he may have been linked to the murder of a friend’s wife in the country he resides in; however don’t believe there is evidence linking him to that case either.

As I’ve mentioned in a few threads, I am an occasional cold case buff. So I know some things about the Zodiac crimes, but I’m not knowledgeable to a super in-depth level. That’s both a disadvantage but also perhaps an advantage, in ways.

I was reading through the memos and primary sources on the Bates murder this morning. I either wasn’t aware of a few certain things and/or had never really considered their implications in the same way.

Let’s take Zodiac out of the equation for a moment. Let’s ask the more basic question: Was Cheri Jo Bates the victim of a serial killer?

I ask this question for a reason. The reason is the confession letter. The letter on its face appears to be full of the musings of a serial killer. No one reading that letter would think this guy is going to stop. What I didn’t know or realize about this letter until this morning is that it apparently contained details only known to the killer and for that reason RPD considered it to be a letter authentically from the killer.

That’s a small detail, but it shocked me. Because if that’s the case, then it seems to me one of three things would need to be true.

1) The RPD suspect is a serial killer, or
2) The letter writer (perhaps the RPD suspect) is the murderer and only pretended to be a serial killer to throw off the scent, or
3) The letter writer is the murderer, he is a serial killer, but he is not the RPD suspect.

So I ask those who know more about this than I do:

1) Is there any evidence linking the RPD suspect to any other murder (or any murder, period)?

2) It could be No. 2. But (bringing the Z case back in) what are the odds that you fake a letter about serial killing and then the state’s lead handwriting expert links it to the the handwriting of the state’s most infamous serial killer?

What I’m getting at is that if the murderer were the RPD suspect, and if the letter is from the murderer, then 1 or 2 must be true. I don’t get the sense that No. 1 is true. (Perhaps someone who knows more about the case will correct me if I’m wrong.) Therefore, no. 2 would have to be true. But reading it, I don’t get the sense that that letter is fake. And to have Morrill declare it a Z letter …. that would require incredibly unfortunate luck.

So if you see where I’m going, the best conclusion, IMO, is ultimately that the Zodiac committed the crime and wrote the letters.

How would you account for the fact that the next confirmed Z murder occurred more than 2 years later? If your assessment of the Bates confession letters is correct, does that mean he had already killed before, or does it mean he was a budding "wannabe" serial killer who needed two years to bloom?

2 Possibilities- The confession letter writer killed Cheri or he did not

Whether he had killed before the bates murder, or after, I don’t think we can tell from the confession letter

I personally believe that Z wrote ALL of the Bates case letters and desk poem, then went onto become Zodiac. Whether he had killed Cheri, or before her, I can’t say, but to me it’s clear, Zodiac, a serial killer, was involved in some way in Cheri’s case, even if he just did writing

Also to add, i would hope and expect, that DNA from the Bates case has been entered into the natl database someplace, and if it has been, I assume there were no hits since her case remains unsolved

If he was a serial killer and not Zodiac, I opt for the Lipstick killer…or someone copying the Lipstick Killer.

Depositing female parts for the whole city to see? And, "I’m stalking your girls now".

Whose girls was he stalking before?

But reading it, I don’t get the sense that that letter is fake. And to have Morrill declare it a Z letter …. that would require incredibly unfortunate luck.

I don’t get that sense – directly – either. However, there are some problems with taking it at face value. If the author is truthful, he knew Bates. Not only did he know her – he did so for years. One may debate to what extent he knew her – but he definitely knew her.

One may also question how likely it is that the killer willingly admits to knowing her. It’s a small pool he’s swimming in – anyone writing that who wasn’t, well, an idiot would realize that Bates’ friends and acquaintances (anyone who had any connection to her whatsoever) would be under scrutiny. Unless he wanted to be caught, it seems odd to offer this potentially crucial bit of info explicitly.

If we take one step further (as you do yourself) and assume that this writer is Z, then we have to conclude that the latter is, in fact, hiding in that relatively small pool of males who knew Bates to an extent.

As for Morrill – that’s another debate. But all he verified in this particular instance was a tiny sample of capital letters.

Nick:
I’ve done a good deal of cogitating over the desktop poem. Here are some of my cogs:
1. The poem was probably written after Fall ’66 semester began (September, ’66), and before Winter Break (December, ’66).
2. The initials, rh, are those of the writer. They suggest the poem was written before Cheri’s murder, as does the anticipatory tone of the poem ("Just wait till next time").
Whether or no Cheri’s killer evolved into Zodiac (and I believe he did) her murder was conducted amateurishly, as the use of a four-inch blade indicates. Far more foresight was shown in the sabotage of her VW, which suggests that Cheri’s killer’s primary desire was to strand Cheri so he could talk to her.

But reading it, I don’t get the sense that that letter is fake. And to have Morrill declare it a Z letter …. that would require incredibly unfortunate luck.

One may also question how likely it is that the killer willingly admits to knowing her. It’s a small pool he’s swimming in – anyone writing that who wasn’t, well, an idiot would realize that Bates’ friends and acquaintances (anyone who had any connection to her whatsoever) would be under scrutiny. Unless he wanted to be caught, it seems odd to offer this potentially crucial bit of info explicitly.

If he didn’t know her, there would be no need to write any letters for misdirection purposes since there would be no connection to her. I lean towards the Author being somebody in between. Not a stranger, but not somebody very close to her either.

If he didn’t know her, there would be no need to write any letters for misdirection purposes since there would be no connection to her. I lean towards the Author being somebody in between. Not a stranger, but not somebody very close to her either.

I think it’s very possible that the killer was someone akin to what you suggest: Something in between. Someone who was obsessed with CJB, perhaps someone she herself would barely be aware of. The letter writer, however, strikes me as being more problematic in that regard.

As you say, it makes little sense for a perfect stranger to pretend that he knows her – the only explanation I can think of is that he simply liked to mess with people (and cops). But then again it makes little sense for anyone connected to her – even if it was just peripheral – to admit to this fact. Why risk it? The multiple carbons suggest that he didn’t want to be identified.

Perplexing stuff. It’s actually less of a conundrum if we go with the theory that the killer and the writer are not one and the same. But we can’t go with that simply because it’s less bothersome.

No..but the dots are so easily evident it looks highly possibly she may have fell at the hands of the z…rpd needs to open some parts of there case file and let someone fresh have a go at this..not going happen because there main guy is probably still livin.very interesting topic..good read

If I had never heard of the Zodiac before and, was working the Cheri Jo Bates case, I would think that the killer knew the victim. The items that suggest to me he knew the victim are:

1. The number and severity of the wounds.

This is personal and its filled with rage. He perceived a wrong by her in some fashion and took care of it in the way he saw fit. This killer, as is, could be anyone. He could be a friend of a friend, a friend of a friend of a family member, a teacher, etc. Hell, they could have been on the same daily schedule and came across each other every Tuesday at the local donut shop. He is anyone at this point.

The confession letter enters the picture. The writer states things only the killer and police know. There is that level of fact there. There is truth. So I don’t think anyone could or should deny that the writer and killer are one and the same. He is believed at this point and simply because of the knowledge of facts. Given this level of fact and, the title confession, I don’t think we could really deny anything else he said this letter as anything other than the truth. What does he have to lose? He took all the precautionary measures of making copies of copies of copies, he typed the letter and, he talked in general terms of knowing her previously. He clearly knew her. He just wasn’t in her immediate life. Someone who knew her before, seen her out and about, watched her from a distance and maybe even approached her a time or two over a period of time. I think its likely he best knew her in high school. Looking at every male in her graduating class is a good start. But this guy could have graduated up to three years before her or three years after. I wouldn’t be looking at anyone in college nor would I be looking at her boyfriend. He’s a distant acquaintance.

The Bates had to die letters. The letter writer writes the police, the press and the family. I dont know that there is enough there to suggest letter writer and killer are the same. Names and addresses could have been pulled from a phone book or a newspaper. I do think it leans more towards the possibility of the two being the same since the killer did send in the confession letter. He was putting himself out there then. He was putting all the focus on him then rather than the victim. This Bates had to die letter is really no different. Its bout attention and fame. He is thinking of self. The only personal thing attributed to the victim would be in how he addressed Cheri in the letter to her father; he said "she". While, my feelings are not as strong as the confession, I do believe this to be the work of the killer.

I dismiss the desktop poem entirely and think that looking at RH suspects is a waste of time. The desktop poem could be by anyone and any thing. There is not much of anything there to suggest the desktop poem and Cheri case are connected other than the time frame when found.

I should also add that, if you can trust everything about the confession letter then, you must accept the fact he has killed before. He says she was not the first nor would she be the last. I believe that. The only thing I question is whether or not he communicated his kills before her. Given, that he likely killed before her, I would say he killed after her as well.

Soze

If I had never heard of the Zodiac before and, was working the Cheri Jo Bates case, I would think that the killer knew the victim. The items that suggest to me he knew the victim are:

1. The number and severity of the wounds.

This is personal and its filled with rage. He perceived a wrong by her in some fashion and took care of it in the way he saw fit. This killer, as is, could be anyone. He could be a friend of a friend, a friend of a friend of a family member, a teacher, etc. Hell, they could have been on the same daily schedule and came across each other every Tuesday at the local donut shop. He is anyone at this point.

The confession letter enters the picture. The writer states things only the killer and police know. There is that level of fact there. There is truth. So I don’t think anyone could or should deny that the writer and killer are one and the same. He is believed at this point and simply because of the knowledge of facts. Given this level of fact and, the title confession, I don’t think we could really deny anything else he said this letter as anything other than the truth. What does he have to lose? He took all the precautionary measures of making copies of copies of copies, he typed the letter and, he talked in general terms of knowing her previously. He clearly knew her. He just wasn’t in her immediate life. Someone who knew her before, seen her out and about, watched her from a distance and maybe even approached her a time or two over a period of time. I think its likely he best knew her in high school. Looking at every male in her graduating class is a good start. But this guy could have graduated up to three years before her or three years after. I wouldn’t be looking at anyone in college. He’s a distant acquaintance.

The Bates had to die letters. The letter writer writes the police, the press and the family. I dont know that there is enough there to suggest letter writer and killer are the same. Names and addresses could have been pulled from a phone book or a newspaper. I do think it leans more towards the possibility of the two being the same since the killer did send in the confession letter. He was putting himself out there then. He was putting all the focus on him then rather than the victim. This Bates had to die letter is really no different. Its bout attention and fame. He is thinking of self. The only personal thing attributed to the victim would be in how he addressed Cheri in the letter to her father; he said "she". While, my feelings are not as strong as the confession, I do believe this to be the work of the killer.

I dismiss the desktop poem entirely and think that looking at RH suspects is a waste of time. The desktop poem could be by anyone and any thing. There is not much of anything there to suggest the desktop poem and Cheri case are connected other than the time frame when found.

Soze

This is pretty close to where I stand myself. I like your reasoning – to a great extent.

Not all the way – but to a great extent.

The distant acquaintance angle in particular rings true to me. And this does work for both the murder itself and the letter – I suppose. If he’s distant enough, and knows it, he might feel sufficiently safe to write what he does: Someone who felt close enough to CJB to kill her much like an actual spurned lover might have done – but without being a spurned lover in anything resembling a true sense. Someone CJB would have recognized – from wherever – and who could strike up a conversation with her based on something (no matter how little) they had in common. But someone whom none of her friends or family members would associate with CJB – someone they would never include in a list of people who were acquainted with her.

Crucial question: How sure are we – actually – that the pertinent details could not have been known to anyone but the killer and the cops? It’s been a long time since I researched this particular aspect, but I do remember there being some doubt voiced about this.

Or, how about someone who knew Cheri VERY well. Someone of which no one in a million years would have ever suspected. Not a brush off at all…

Or, how about someone who knew Cheri VERY well. Someone of which no one in a million years would have ever suspected. Not a brush off at all…

Possible problem: The business with the car.

What I’m thinking is – still – that whoever killed her, wasn’t determined to do so from the onset. He tampered with the car to gain an excuse to talk to her. The talk didn’t go as he wished – and tragedy ensued. He was, to be blunt, a nutcase who was obsessed with her – and who killed her because she didn’t respond in accordance with the fantasies in his head.

If he knew her very well – part of that has to go, I think. Which is fine – I could easily be wrong. But the car business remains – it’s a fact that he tampered with the car. Would that part be necessary at all for someone who knew her very well?