Reasons C.J. Bates was not killed by the Zodiac
1 – Shoe print size at Riverside is a size 8 1/2 and the shoe print size found at Lake Berryessa is a 10
2 – Watch found at Riverside is that a 7 inch wrist , a small wrist by any means. This does not match any description of the zodiac.
3 – C.J Bates murder not listed on Lake Berryessa car door
4 – DNA and print evidence from C.J. Bates’s murderer were recovered from the scene. Once the connection to the Zodiac was made
there is no doubt that a comparison was done. As we have never heard of a match this leads me to believe that the results came back negative.
5 – Zodiac never mentions any Riverside murder until after Paul Avery gives him credit for it. Even then Zodiac simply mentions "riverside activity".
6 – Killing does not match Zodiac. C.J Bates was killed in a forceful manner. She was allowed the ability to fight her atttacker while being murdered. No confirmed Zodiac victim was offered the same chance.
Il address briefly some of the connections people use to connect Zodiac to C.J Bates.
The desktop poem – I see no connection between the poem and murder of C.J Bates, anyone who does is simply guessing. There is no evidence the two are linked.
Desktop poem handwriting – Without getting my amateur handwriting opinion in the way lets simply look at the facts. Morrill thinks its a match for zodiac. Shimoda does not. FBI consider it inconclusive. I think we can fairly say this leaves us unsure.
The bates letters – Again if we look to the handwriting experts for answers we again get a verdict of inconclusive. Morrill yes, Shimoda no, FBI inconclusive. While confession letters are not very common there is cases of this happening. Saying it looks like Zodiac activity is simply not good enough.
This leaves us with double stamps and a spelling mistake, again these things happen and in my opinion are evidence of nothing.
If we stick to the facts in this case the link between Zodiac and the murder of C.J is simply not there.
Bates was murdered by someone who knew her, and she knew him. Way too much non-sexual rage in the attack. Way, way too personal.
Also, it’s unlikely The Zodiac was of college age.
Thus, it’s unlikely The Zodiac knew Cheri Jo Bates. Thus, it’s unlikely he killed her.
The so-called Confession Letter is likely a fake because: if the writer of that letter were the killer, it’s unlikely he would have deliberately implicated someone in Bates’ life, especially after going to such trouble to eliminate the possibility of the police tracking his typewriter.
Really, if you knew Bates and had killed her, would you write a letter telling everyone Bates was quite familiar with her killer, but then over-ensure that no one could even identify the typewriter on which you wrote your so-called confession letter?
The Zodiac may have written the letter(s), but he didn’t kill Bates. I suspect though we have at least three parties, perhaps four: Bates’ killer, the person(s) who wrote the letters, and The Zodiac.
The desktop poem is pretty much conflated, unrelated junk.
The shoe size at Berryessa was 10.5 and still cannot to this day be inextricably linked to Zodiac and shoe size is not a good marker, I have shoes of 10 and 11, it depends on the fit, plus if I were committing murder I would wear larger shoes to throw investigators off, it’s not difficult.
The killer of CJB in all likelihood isn’t Zodiac, but the letters may be. Wrist size and body size are linked but not irrefutably linked.
The CJB murder was not on the door at Berryessa either 1. He didn’t commit the murder 2. It wasnt done under the Zodiac umbrella or when he adopted his new persona.
I am sure DNA was collected in 66 and probably doesn’t match the Zodiac envelope DNA.
The Riverside connection claimed by Zodiac could simply be another ruse or maybe chose not to incorporate it under his new adopted guise of Zodiac.
If he had murdered CJB, which is unlikely, it may be his first steps into murder and he was still learning his ‘trade’, killers often perfect their technique as they progress. In this case he learnt to keep his distance in the future and prevent the victim from fighting back.
In all honestly you can take these handwriting experts or experts in general with a pinch of salt. Every single high profile court case has expert testimony, some for the defense and some for the prosecution and they are such experts in their field even they cannot agree. You may say that’s about money, but it certainly does not improve their standpoint of credibility. Some say certain letters match, some say they do not, it’s not an exact science and should be treated as such. These so called experts are as human as we are and although carry some expertise, this expertise is subject to bias.
I am sure DNA was collected in 66 and probably doesn’t match the Zodiac envelope DNA.
Mitochondrial DNA was collected in 1966 in the form of hairs. It did not match the mtDNA of RPD’s prime suspect. Nuclear DNA was degraded beyond the point of usability.
As for the envelopes…I think investigators located a partial nDNA profile, which investigators could not compare to the mtDNA in the Bates case.
‘Handwriting Analysis’ is a bit of a joke, really. Saying that it is "more art than science" is putting it mildly, in my opinion. A Google search for "certified handwriting analyst" is here:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=ce … ng+analyst
You can find hundreds of websites that are – for a fee – willing to "train and certify" you. Even the Wikipedia page directly calls it a pseudoscience:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphoanalysis
-glurk
——————————–
I don’t believe in monsters.
Nanette Barto, was a Court Certified Forensic Document Examiner and we know what happened there.
Nanette Barto, was a Court Certified Forensic Document Examiner and we know what happened there.
Or the Gary Stewart / Earl Van Best thing as well. But I am getting off topic here, sorry to the OP.
-glurk
EDIT: To try to be on-topic again, I will add my opinion that CJB was not Zodiac, and I never have thought so. For the reasons given in the original post, and others as well. It may be just as interesting to see opinions as to why Z was involved… Just to play Devil’s Advocate.
——————————–
I don’t believe in monsters.
Dan, you bring up good reasons why Z may not have killed Cheri Jo Bates. I have always been on the fence about whether he did or not. However, in regards to the Riverside writing, I firmly believe Zodiac sent all of the handwritten letters as well as the confession letter. In the confession letter, the writer used the word, ‘Shall’ which Zodiac was fond of using, and that simply is not a common word in the USA. As far as the writing similarities to Zodiac, have a look at Travellerfirst’s work here on page 1 of this thread- viewtopic.php?f=80&t=18
He points out a bunch of similarities that are very hard to explain away. The candy cane f on the desktop poem is a pure match for the f on the Berryessa car door, that’s a ‘signature’ f.
As far as handwriting goes, it definitely is all opinion, but Sherwood Morrill was the state’s top writing expert, so I would hope that gives him a leg up. He is the one that verified and checked all of the confirmed Z letters, so it’s hard to say well I think he was correct about his findings in these letters, but wrong about these letters.
Look at the pattern of the Bates letters, they taunt the police, they ask to be published, they use the same words Z use, they mention making a call to police after the murder, they use double stamps, they have a little symbol that looks similar to a Z,all of this matches Zodiac. Add all that to Morrill’s findings, and I think it’s pretty clear Z wrote these even if he didnt kill Cheri
There is more than one way to lose your life to a killer
http://www.zodiackillersite.com/
http://zodiackillersite.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/Morf13ZKS
i’ve said this before but it seems relevant – what difference does it make if zodiac killed bates if we still don’t know who killed bates? i’ve heard arguments that it would tie zodiac to riverside, to the school, to the library, etc but all of that is conjecture even IF we could prove zodiac was involved. it would prove zodiac killed people other than those in the official "z canon" but i think it would be more useful to solve the bates case without trying to make it connect to zodiac then look at the perp to see if it could be zodiac. everything else seems like a house of cards.
to keep this post from being completely off-topic – zodiac admitted "riverside activities" after averly called him out via the paper. this was a period of time when zodiac was trying to get away from committing murders by taking credit for things like the kathleen johns abduction and otherwise vaguely insinuating he would continue his activities without taking credit. i don’t buy that he literally was going to keep murdering and not taking credit. his whole modus was killing someone then bragging about it. i just think given the option between a) he is connecting the dots for LE or b) he is making stuff up to confuse the situation, i’d take B any day of the week. taking credit for things he didn’t do is the logical way to keep the cops confused. just my 2 cents.
i’ve said this before but it seems relevant – what difference does it make if zodiac killed bates if we still don’t know who killed bates? i’ve heard arguments that it would tie zodiac to riverside, to the school, to the library, etc but all of that is conjecture even IF we could prove zodiac was involved. it would prove zodiac killed people other than those in the official "z canon" but i think it would be more useful to solve the bates case without trying to make it connect to zodiac then look at the perp to see if it could be zodiac. everything else seems like a house of cards.
to keep this post from being completely off-topic – zodiac admitted "riverside activities" after averly called him out via the paper. this was a period of time when zodiac was trying to get away from committing murders by taking credit for things like the kathleen johns abduction and otherwise vaguely insinuating he would continue his activities without taking credit. i don’t buy that he literally was going to keep murdering and not taking credit. his whole modus was killing someone then bragging about it. i just think given the option between a) he is connecting the dots for LE or b) he is making stuff up to confuse the situation, i’d take B any day of the week. taking credit for things he didn’t do is the logical way to keep the cops confused. just my 2 cents.
Well, if it was proven Z killed Bates, it would bring more clues, evidence, etc, to the Z case, more resources, and one more jurisdiction to work the Z case. Riverside PD is convinced that their Suspect, ‘Bob Barnett’ killed Cheri, despite DNA evidence excluding him. While I want to see Cheri’s case solved, it almost doesn’t matter whether Z killed her, what is important is whether Z wrote the letters in the case as that would rule out a whole lot of Suspects, and police could focus on suspects with a Riverside connection
There is more than one way to lose your life to a killer
http://www.zodiackillersite.com/
http://zodiackillersite.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/Morf13ZKS
im not convinced CJB was Z (50/50 I like the wood fence)..i think there was a women present or the watch was just lost previously..i just do not know and I do not know about D/E either being Z//there is good reason to link both in my mind but it is theoretical..i so wanted ferrin to have some key to Z as well but now I think she wss just wrong place wrong time
boots: honestly I never thought much of shoe size..TK had a nice pair of boots you should look
CJB just naws at me..what a waste of life..she never deserved the brutality
i just think given the option between a) he is connecting the dots for LE or b) he is making stuff up to confuse the situation, i’d take B any day of the week. taking credit for things he didn’t do is the logical way to keep the cops confused. just my 2 cents.
I agree.
I go with Z’s word for those instances where there is a clear connection between murder and letter (that is, basically, the canonical murders: He kills someone, then takes credit for it in no uncertain terms and includes some form of proof that he did it).
For the others, the logical assumption is indeed that he is taking credit for something he did NOT do, rather than bizarrely joining the dots for the cops (as you say) – why would he do that? Why not take credit right away? He wasn’t shy about doing it for the canonical ones.
The idea that Z killed Bates before assuming the Z persona, thus not wanting to take credit – possibly also not wanting the connection to be made because the murder was too close to home – doesn’t hold water for me, all things said and done.
If he didn’t want to be associated with the Bates murder, he would not have taken credit for it – at all. But he did. Because it added to his bogeyman status and it cost him nothing.
As for the possibility of him being the letter writer – I don’t know about that either. It’s possible but not likely in my opinion.
The Zodiac also offered no proof. In all other instances, he made very clear he and he alone was the killer.
LHR/BRS: A letter that gave specifics.
LB: A signed confession, essentially, and a reference to his previous crimes.
PH: Stine’s bloody shirt.
Bates? Nothing.
Johns? Nothing.
He didn’t kill Bates and he wasn’t the guy in the car with Johns.
Saying he did and was is just wishful thinking and willful ignorance of the facts, imo.
Probably didn’t kill Edwards and Domingos either. If he had, he would have very likely mentioned it.
As a general observation I’d say there’s a tendency in these debates to pretty much condemn, by implication, the “doubters” for needlessly questioning…what exactly? Established facts? Confirmed truths?
That isn’t so – plainly not. Bates is listed on this very board as a possible Zodiac victim. Given this, it’s actually pretty strange that questioning the reality of either the whole Riverside connection – or parts of it – is regarded by some as, what? Being obtuse? Obnoxiously argumentative? On the face of it, it’s nothing more than insisting on what is established, at least on this board, namely that Bates is not a confirmed Z victim. Why should we NOT insist on that?
Whether we like it or not there are plenty of reasons to doubt that Z killed Bates, and people have done so for years, based on the known facts – not for kicks, or to randomly piss off people who believe otherwise.
