Seems the car tampering info was released to the press.

Nothing in it, then, which positively rules out an imposter. Only the phone detail could possibly do that – but we have no confirmation that the killer actually made such a call.

There is no reason at all for the actual killer to write the confession letter. What possible reason could there be? The letter sounds as if the person knows Cheri & Vice versa, and would point the police in the direction of Bates knowing her killer, so why would somebody that knew her write that? On the other hand, a stranger, that does not know Cheri and is not connected to her, would not have to misdirect the police, they could just stay silent. That’s why I think the letter writer was likely not her killer. If the letter writer was identified, but was not the killer, what trouble could he get into? Not much.

The Zodiac could have just stayed silent but he didn’t.

Soze

Which is one reason I think he had nothing to do with Cheri’s murder.

Could you elaborate a bit further?

Soze

There is no reason at all for the actual killer to write the confession letter. What possible reason could there be? The letter sounds as if the person knows Cheri & Vice versa, and would point the police in the direction of Bates knowing her killer, so why would somebody that knew her write that? On the other hand, a stranger, that does not know Cheri and is not connected to her, would not have to misdirect the police, they could just stay silent. That’s why I think the letter writer was likely not her killer. If the letter writer was identified, but was not the killer, what trouble could he get into? Not much.

One could theorize as follows:

* The killer needed to write that letter for personal reasons. Some killers do. He may not have done it in order to fool anyone – or in order to boost his notoriety – but simply because he felt compelled to.

* The killer barely knew her at all from her perspective (and from that of her friends/family). It was relatively safe for him to “confess” in this fashion even though what he writes is, from his perspective, “true”.

I don’t strongly believe the above is the case, just to be clear. Devil’s advocate more than anything. What you argue above makes perfect sense.

the thing about killers, or even hoaxers, who choose public messages as their medium is it’s how they get their release. what other reason would someone have for writing a letter to bates’ dad? either you are the killer (in which case you’re increasing the likelihood of getting caught for no reason) or you’re a hoaxer (in which case you get off on the torment you perceive your letter to cause).

sure, you could argue that some criminals write letters or communicate publicly to throw off the trail of those attempting to catch them, but i think we can all agree that was never part of zodiac’s modus. i’ve said it many times on here, but his murders were a means to an end. he wanted to be the boogie man who was in control, who terrorized the public, and he got off on knowing that no one could figure out who he was. that was the most important part to him and he facilitated it by writing letters and making phone calls. it was not incidental to who he was, it was him at his core.

when we look at his letters and phone calls, it’s easy to imagine them all as a part of a larger plan – carefully constructed and encoded with messages that are key to finding his identity. i don’t believe that was their purpose and, as such, any personal information we glean from them is incidental. an example – folks have postulated he must have a background in theater to know the mikado, but the truth is he quoted (poorly) the groucho marx version that was on television.

long story short, i don’t think he wrote to give clues, i think he wrote to have control because that was more important to him than the murders (the murders being an intense short-term version of that control, but ultimately ensuring he’d be taken seriously).

this does match up well with the senselessness of bates’ murderer writing to le and her father although i continue to have a hard time with zodiac copping to a murder committed while he was still an amateur. seems too risky but again maybe we put too much stock in the idea that he cared if he got caught.

@Soze: I don’t think Zodiac would take credit for Cheri’s murder if he actually killed her…especially with LE having possible proof of committing more than one murder. I personally think it gave him an opportunity to gloat. Bonus for him.

@masootz: I agree. The fact is, when someone is psycho, we don’t know why they do what they do, but I think you summed it up nicely. This/these guy(s) were sickos who got off on letter writing and taunting. Not a whole lot different than people who take credit for murders they did not commit–like that guy who said he murdered Jon Bonet Ramsey. Why do they do it? Only they really know for sure.

@Soze: I don’t think Zodiac would take credit for Cheri’s murder if he actually killed her…especially with LE having possible proof of committing more than one murder. I personally think it gave him an opportunity to gloat. Bonus for him.

That makes sense, but then again, if Z wanted to capitalize on a false connection to the Bates case & to Riverside when the news broke, why not jump right on it and give the cops lots of busy work to do right away, if he knew that he wasn’t connected to Riverside at all? Why would he wait months to finally take credit? I think it’s pretty telling, although obviously, you and I have different opinions as to why he waited so long

@Soze: I don’t think Zodiac would take credit for Cheri’s murder if he actually killed her…especially with LE having possible proof of committing more than one murder. I personally think it gave him an opportunity to gloat. Bonus for him.

That makes sense, but then again, if Z wanted to capitalize on a false connection to the Bates case & to Riverside when the news broke, why not jump right on it and give the cops lots of busy work to do right away, if he knew that he wasn’t connected to Riverside at all? Why would he wait months to finally take credit? I think it’s pretty telling, although obviously, you and I have different opinions as to why he waited so long

In case the real guy was caught.

In case the real guy was caught.

Very possible.

Besides, we don’t know what Z’s idea of "communicating" with either the press or LE actually was, in detail. I concur with everything masootz says above regarding what significance the letter writing had for him – but what his actual game plan (if he had one) amounted to is a different question.

Would he have responded right away if he had nothing to do with Riverside? Is the tardy response an indication that he was worried?

I personally don’t think so. I don’t think he would have responded at all if Riverside was a dirty secret he had hoped nobody would unearth.

But we simply don’t know exactly how he used these letters as a means to convey specifics – so to speak. In general, what he did seems clear: More or less what masootz describes above. But whether it’s suspicious or perfectly normal for him to wait several months before responding to Avery’s Riverside article…is anyone’s guess.

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…

It might have been someone she met in passing who was a person with narcissistic personality disorder. Any little slight could cause a narcissist to lash out.

Thought i would add this here. I wrote it in regards to the Riverside/Zodiac connection thread.

"In addition, the Riverside killer spoke of "sisters, daughters, wives" in that order. He also talked of being brushed off by Cheri. He is giving the indication of being a young man. The initial reports of the Zodiacs age was around 25 ( don’t recall off hand the exact statements). This age, given the length of time between Riverside and the Zodiacs crimes, would seem to fit a person that may have been about 4 years older than Cheri. 25 in 1969. 22 in 1966. This would imply that he may not have been in high school with her unless he failed a few grades."

So high school comparisons may not be important unless, as stated above, he failed a few grades.

Soze

I don’t think the initial report (not sure exactly what you’re referring to here, Soze) is any more – or less – accurate than anything which followed.

The average age estimate going by witness statements (MM, BH, PH kids and Fouke) would be around 30. Fouke is the one who clearly pushes his age upwards – MM does the opposite. BH’s estimate is the least specific one, arguably. The two dispatchers who heard his voice offer contradicting opinions as to age.

Bates’ killer likely knew her in one way or another (my take). From that I’d further suggest that he was roughly her age.

Z refers to the LHR and BRS victims as "kids". Also refers to "MM" as "the boy". An indication that he’s significantly older than them.

Based on the above (which isn’t iron clad by any stretch, I’ll be the first to admit) it wouldn’t be outrageous to suggest that Z, on the whole, seems to be somewhat older than Bates’ killer:

MM = 26-30
Slover = mature voice

BH = 20-30
Slaight = sounded young

PHT = Early 40s

Fouke = 35-45

When I said initial reports I was thinking of witness testimony and the various age range given. I think, without digging, that I did just what you laid out. I believe i looked at the witness testimony regarding age, looked at the testimony given by Zodiac regarding teenagers, boy/girl, cab driver etc and, narrowed down an approximate age of 25. I also believe that I was including little things like the circled dots for i’s and "leaving fake clews" and considering it as part of his mentality to focus in on age. I dismiss Fouke’s estimated age for Zodiac entirely. I just don’t find him trustworthy; then or now.

Soze

I dismiss Fouke’s estimated age for Zodiac entirely. I just don’t find him trustworthy; then or now.

That’s fair enough – but his estimate jibes with that of the teens.

Anyway, what we have in the form of eyewitness descriptions vary from 20 (BH’s lowest estimate) to 45 (Fouke’s highest), which is…well, it’s actually completely useless.

So, your method – which includes other factors beside these descriptions – isn’t unsound at all.

I guess my main point remains that there may be some reasons to place Z in an older age group than Bates’ killer. Looking at Bates, in isolaton, the killer (to me, at least) appears to be someone who knew her and who was (to some extent) obsessed with her. The likeliest candidate is someone who wasn’t significantly older than Bates, e.g. someone who went to school with her. Doesn’t mean he has to be born in the same year – but it’s pretty close.