Here is a good article that might help you understand the Riverside case better:

http://www.zodiackillerfacts.com/blog/r … mysteries/

Here is a good article that might help you understand the Riverside case better:

http://www.zodiackillerfacts.com/blog/r … mysteries/

Do you think those that don’t believe Cheri was a Zodiac victim don’t have a good understanding of the case?

Here is a good article that might help you understand the Riverside case better:

http://www.zodiackillerfacts.com/blog/r … mysteries/

Do you think those that don’t believe Cheri was a Zodiac victim don’t have a good understanding of the case?

Many do not.

Here is a good article that might help you understand the Riverside case better:

http://www.zodiackillerfacts.com/blog/r … mysteries/

Do you think those that don’t believe Cheri was a Zodiac victim don’t have a good understanding of the case?

Many do not.

But, many who believe she was not a Zodiac victim also have a better understanding of the case than some of those who do believe she was.

It just sounded like you were saying the previous posts were uneducated statements.

I personally don’t think Butterfield is justified in claiming that Z is the most "logical" suspect in the Bates case. He is the only known suspect who might have done it (if we completely dismiss the original RPD suspect), but that is a different matter altogether. If one doubts Z’s veracity – and there is every reason to do that – he isn’t a more logical suspect than anyone else.

Butterfield claims that Z only took credit for six murders (the five canonical ones plus Bates), and points out that all of these remain unsolved. The latter is fair enough – but the former is plainly not the case. Z took credit for several murders in addition to the six mentioned. Going by Butterfield’s reasoning he must have committed them all (if not his point goes out the window) – and that is hardly an unproblematic contention.

Z only took credit for Bates after he was invited to do so. Would he have done so at some point regardless? If he only killed six people (but he claimed to have killed many more, which again undermines this point), why didn’t he claim Bates in the same way he claimed the others, i.e. by making it abundantly clear that he was the killer? He barely bothers to nod his head in agreement when it comes to Bates. Why didn’t he include Bates in his list of dates on the car door at LB? Well, perhaps the LB killer wasn’t Z – but THAT is not Butterfield’s position, as far as I know. Why didn’t he include Bates when he took credit for LHR after BRS?

What I gather from LE’s treatment of the Bates case in relation to Z is that there is plenty of doubt and internal discord. Both within RPD and the jurisdictions which dealt with the Z case. Butterfield’s most salient points pertain to RPD’s questionable insistence on a certain suspect. That part I have no issue with. But it doesn’t follow from the unlikelihood of A being the killer that B (or rather Z) is the most logical suspect.

I believe that there is a possibility that Z did commit the murder; however this was prior to his mental illness taking over the majority of his life and since he did not ID himself as Z at that time he never included it in his murder count.

I feel that Z may have known Cheri Jo, but never dated her because she was unwilling. It may have been that he made advances that were turned down or that he never actually asked, but figured she would never date someone like him. That range means either he know her personally or just admired her from a far. I believe that is why the murder did seem so personal because it was personal to him.

I also do not think that the fact the author of the letter stated that she did not fight means that he did not do it because obviously she fought. I think in his mind it made him feel more manly to say she didn’t fight. It was almost like saying she knew she never had a chance against me, so she did not even bother. I think it is actually an argument in favor of the murderer writing the letter.

So, I am leaning more towards Z committing the murder, but not seeing himself as Z at the time. I think that as his mental health increased he began to see himself as two different people, his true identity and Z. In his mind Z didn’t kill Cheri Jo, he did and he continued to keep that mind set. However, when it was actually brought out he no longer felt the need to hide the fact, because he wanted people to see him as the dangerous man that he was. Z’s later letters almost sounded like a child rubbing in their parents faces the things that they could not stop him from doing. So when Cheri Jo’s murder came up it was almost like he was saying, ha ha- I got away with that too.

Again, I am leaning more towards this murder being committed by Z (prior to being Z), but I also like hearing other perceptions and exploring all avenues.

I also do not think that the fact the author of the letter stated that she did not fight means that he did not do it because obviously she fought. I think in his mind it made him feel more manly to say she didn’t fight. It was almost like saying she knew she never had a chance against me, so she did not even bother. I think it is actually an argument in favor of the murderer writing the letter.

That is a good point- he also could have implied that "she was asking for it anyway", that she really "wanted it". But its not really a sexual crime- per se-and the biggest tell for me is the watch. He dropped his watch- or rather it was ripped from him. A 7 inch circumference wristband points to a person with a smaller frame. When I looked it up this is on the smaller side of a medium build. Granted, he could have gotten fatter, but the letter reads too much like a narrative.

I have been reading "This is the Zodiac Speaking" and the breakdown of the Bates letters are really intriguing. They basically say, "here’s why it could be him. Here’s why it COULDNT be him".

Does anyone know if the DNA found under Cheri Jo’s fingernails was EVER tested?

Does anyone know if the DNA found under Cheri Jo’s fingernails was EVER tested?

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=92

I believe that there is a possibility that Z did commit the murder; however this was prior to his mental illness taking over the majority of his life and since he did not ID himself as Z at that time he never included it in his murder count.

I feel that Z may have known Cheri Jo, but never dated her because she was unwilling. It may have been that he made advances that were turned down or that he never actually asked, but figured she would never date someone like him. That range means either he know her personally or just admired her from a far. I believe that is why the murder did seem so personal because it was personal to him.

I also do not think that the fact the author of the letter stated that she did not fight means that he did not do it because obviously she fought. I think in his mind it made him feel more manly to say she didn’t fight. It was almost like saying she knew she never had a chance against me, so she did not even bother. I think it is actually an argument in favor of the murderer writing the letter.

So, I am leaning more towards Z committing the murder, but not seeing himself as Z at the time. I think that as his mental health increased he began to see himself as two different people, his true identity and Z. In his mind Z didn’t kill Cheri Jo, he did and he continued to keep that mind set. However, when it was actually brought out he no longer felt the need to hide the fact, because he wanted people to see him as the dangerous man that he was. Z’s later letters almost sounded like a child rubbing in their parents faces the things that they could not stop him from doing. So when Cheri Jo’s murder came up it was almost like he was saying, ha ha- I got away with that too.

Again, I am leaning more towards this murder being committed by Z (prior to being Z), but I also like hearing other perceptions and exploring all avenues.

Not the worst idea, except there is no proof of it. There is no proof of Z suffering from a mental illness, at all. Those who commit crimes while mentally ill tend to commit crimes far more garish and less organized than Z’. Witness Richard Chase for a particularly good example of some literally in the throes of mental illness- not a personality disorder, not sociopathy, but MADNESS- and look at what he did and how he did it. He barely hid his crimes at all. Walked around with blood on his clothes. There is ZERO evidence of Z being under any mental duress at all, other than the Belli letter where he says "I cannot controll myself" which is hilarious as the letter itself is one of the very neatest he ever wrote- apart from the codes himself. He was obviously monkeying with Belli- sucking up to another peacock to get more attention that Belli was obviously happy to bestow.
And personally, I have great empathy for those with a LEGIT mental illness, who hear voices, who suffer from schizophrenia. That is a degenerative brain DISEASE. Its a terrible, terrible catastrophe, and I know, because a friend of mine in my teens suffered from it and strangled his girlfriend to death, after leading police on a multi-state high speed chase. People with mental illness have NO control. Z had NOTHING but control, and to imply that he was out of his mind is to basically pull him off the hook for these crimes, diminish his responsibility. He did them, in his right mind, and stopped the Z crimes, in his right mind. There is no evidence to the contrary.

I believe that there is a possibility that Z did commit the murder; however this was prior to his mental illness taking over the majority of his life and since he did not ID himself as Z at that time he never included it in his murder count.

I feel that Z may have known Cheri Jo, but never dated her because she was unwilling. It may have been that he made advances that were turned down or that he never actually asked, but figured she would never date someone like him. That range means either he know her personally or just admired her from a far. I believe that is why the murder did seem so personal because it was personal to him.

I also do not think that the fact the author of the letter stated that she did not fight means that he did not do it because obviously she fought. I think in his mind it made him feel more manly to say she didn’t fight. It was almost like saying she knew she never had a chance against me, so she did not even bother. I think it is actually an argument in favor of the murderer writing the letter.

So, I am leaning more towards Z committing the murder, but not seeing himself as Z at the time. I think that as his mental health increased he began to see himself as two different people, his true identity and Z. In his mind Z didn’t kill Cheri Jo, he did and he continued to keep that mind set. However, when it was actually brought out he no longer felt the need to hide the fact, because he wanted people to see him as the dangerous man that he was. Z’s later letters almost sounded like a child rubbing in their parents faces the things that they could not stop him from doing. So when Cheri Jo’s murder came up it was almost like he was saying, ha ha- I got away with that too.

Again, I am leaning more towards this murder being committed by Z (prior to being Z), but I also like hearing other perceptions and exploring all avenues.

Not the worst idea, except there is no proof of it. There is no proof of Z suffering from a mental illness, at all. Those who commit crimes while mentally ill tend to commit crimes far more garish and less organized than Z’. Witness Richard Chase for a particularly good example of some literally in the throes of mental illness- not a personality disorder, not sociopathy, but MADNESS- and look at what he did and how he did it. He barely hid his crimes at all. Walked around with blood on his clothes. There is ZERO evidence of Z being under any mental duress at all, other than the Belli letter where he says "I cannot controll myself" which is hilarious as the letter itself is one of the very neatest he ever wrote- apart from the codes himself. He was obviously monkeying with Belli- sucking up to another peacock to get more attention that Belli was obviously happy to bestow.
And personally, I have great empathy for those with a LEGIT mental illness, who hear voices, who suffer from schizophrenia. That is a degenerative brain DISEASE. Its a terrible, terrible catastrophe, and I know, because a friend of mine in my teens suffered from it and strangled his girlfriend to death, after leading police on a multi-state high speed chase. People with mental illness have NO control. Z had NOTHING but control, and to imply that he was out of his mind is to basically pull him off the hook for these crimes, diminish his responsibility. He did them, in his right mind, and stopped the Z crimes, in his right mind. There is no evidence to the contrary.

I do not feel that saying he had mental health issues takes him off the hook for anything. There is such a wide range of mental health diagnosis and even within the same diagnosis the way people respond to it are very different. Depression is considered a mental health diagnosis; however many people suffer from it and you would never even know it. I do think Z had a much more severe mental illness and the older he got the more out of control he was and that is why he stopped killing (he came to close to being caught/he started to realize he was not in control/he was admitted to a hospital/began taking medication/etc), but continued his taunting. People probably always considered him a little “off” or just called him a “loner”. He probably fantasized about girls from a far, but did not really date much, if at all. That may have been because he tried a couple times and felt he failed or he never even bothered to try because he assumed no one would date him.

If Cheri Jo was a Z victim I think she was the first and he just simply “lost it”. He may have originally went in with the intent to “rescue her” by assisting with her car, but something snapped and he just lost it. Cheri Jo was killed with a small knife, possibly a Swiss army knife/pocket knife. I think her killer was familiar with her, even may have known her personally, and figured that rescuing her from being stranded was his way to trying to start dating her. Then she said something on the way that made him realize that even with his efforts he did not have a chance and he lost it. I think it’s possible that he did not have the knife on him for that reason, but carried around a pocket knife which is not that uncommon. Then he snapped when he realized he still was not going to have her. Maybe she mentioned her recent trip to see another guy (and possibly got engaged, although I’m not sure that was ever confirmed).

I’m also not 100% convinced that the watch was torn off from the attacker. There was a lot of construction going on at the time. Maybe a worker got his watch caught on something and it tore off. He may have even picked it up, but accidently dropped it later. He could have put it in his pocket or in his tool belt and it fell out when he pulled something else out. It may have been from the attacker or it may have been there before the attack even took place. If the watch did belong to a worker I can see him being hesitant to claim it because he was worried that they would try to pin the murder on him.

I always go back and forth on this. It’s the chicken and the egg.

What if Z didn’t killer her or wrote the letters… but he was at RCC and wrote on the desk, and it had nothing to do with the murder. Maybe it was the letters that inspired him and he never really cared about the murder at all and he never thought to connect himself to it and found it an amusing )for him) surprise that he was later thought to be connected to it?

You could come up with any explanation.

I always go back and forth on this. It’s the chicken and the egg.

What if Z didn’t killer her or wrote the letters… but he was at RCC and wrote on the desk, and it had nothing to do with the murder. Maybe it was the letters that inspired him and he never really cared about the murder at all and he never thought to connect himself to it and found it an amusing )for him) surprise that he was later thought to be connected to it?

You could come up with any explanation.

That is definitely an interesting possibility. Maybe he was inspired by the letters that the killer sent, as well as the alleged phone call to her father. Then when they tried to connect it to him, he simply stated his “activities”. He never said that he murdered her just simply made a comment that he was somehow involved in the case. The desktop would involve him, just not the way that they thought. Maybe the other ones he was referring to was not other murders, but other messages/poems he left around the college. (although personally I’m leaning towards him having more involvement (at least in his head), but I do like your theory)

background: bates was killed in oct 1966. the riverside chief of police in october 1969 contacted the department of justice with the idea that the case might be related to the zodiac killing. paul averly made the connection in a nov 1970 in a san francisco chronicle article.

zodiac didn’t comment on the case, he just claimed "i do have to give them credit for stumbling across my riverside activity" (la times letter march 13 1971). this was his first letter after the nov 1970 article. he doesn’t say he killed bates, he doesn’t even reference the murder specifically.

my 2 cents? he’s padding his resume. it’s four years after her murder and the letters make it similar to zodiac’s modus operandi so it’s easy to see why he’d claim it. additionally he makes sure not to specifically claim it, so if it gets solved then he just meant some vague "riverside activity". i’d be much more impressed if he had mentioned it BEFORE the averly article which tries to make a connection.

background: bates was killed in oct 1966. the riverside chief of police in october 1969 contacted the department of justice with the idea that the case might be related to the zodiac killing. paul averly made the connection in a nov 1970 in a san francisco chronicle article.

zodiac didn’t comment on the case, he just claimed "i do have to give them credit for stumbling across my riverside activity" (la times letter march 13 1971). this was his first letter after the nov 1970 article. he doesn’t say he killed bates, he doesn’t even reference the murder specifically.

my 2 cents? he’s padding his resume. it’s four years after her murder and the letters make it similar to zodiac’s modus operandi so it’s easy to see why he’d claim it. additionally he makes sure not to specifically claim it, so if it gets solved then he just meant some vague "riverside activity". i’d be much more impressed if he had mentioned it BEFORE the averly article which tries to make a connection.

True, but there are also plenty of arguments about why we did not mention it, such as not wanting to stated where he was before he starting killing in Northern CA. If he made that claim, then it would make it that much easier for them to narrow down the suspects. By March 1971 he was already done claiming specific murders. Once it was already on the table and he was having fun taunting it made it easier for him to claim it. It doesn’t mean he did it. There are plenty of arguments that can be made both ways and even though I personally believe it is likely that he was involved, I’m more than willing to keep an open mind about it.

The only reason The Zodiac ran with Cheri Jo, months after the so-called connection was mentioned, is because he needed cachet with The Los Angeles Times after The Chronicle no longer found him front-page worthy.

And Cheri Jo’s life was investigated. If the Riverside police hadn’t managed to connect The Zodiac to her murder in 1969-70, then he either was a stranger to her with respect to the killing, or he didn’t kill her. In either case, he had little to fear from his "connection" to the crime, after murdering five additional people.