The writing has 2 realistic answers.

YES they are connected, is supported by a great deal of evidence. Even if the handwriting experts are split, there are many other things that line up.

NO… Well we don’t hear a good answer for this opinion. It leaves all the things that line up as coincidence. It’s never a good idea to ignore evidence and close the door to a possible connection.

While you have written that the writing has two realistic answers (YES and NO), you have theoretically only provided one which seems to indicate your mind is made up. And that is perfectly fine. Like I said, my intent is not to change minds; it is to learn. And if someone else learns in the process, even better.

You said on the one hand (YES) they are connected and are supported by "a great deal of evidence"…Even if the handwriting experts are split. On the other hand you said (NO) they are not related but no one has a good answer for this opinion" and it’s never good to ignore evidence and close the door on a possible connection. In essence, someone can think they are connected regardless of whether the experts can agree or not, or someone can agree they are not connected and be wrong because the evidence does not support that belief so they should pick (YES). Have I read that correctly? If not, I apologize.

From an investigative perspective, there are two realistic answers.

YES- An investigator can accept Mr. Morrill’s analysis.
NO- An investigator can accept another QDE’s analysis.

You shouldn’t qualify your (YES) by saying "there are many other things that line up" in the same sentence you say "Even if the handwriting experts are split…" They are contradicting fragments because if experts are split, then isn’t it logical to expect many things NOT to line up?

And if your intent was to give two unbiased choices, you also shouldn’t immediately disqualify your (NO) by saying no one can give a good answer for that opinion, especially if your first choice states "handwriting experts are split." I think that qualifies as a good reason for some to think they are not connected.

If EVERY QDE opined there was a connection, we can all agree Zodiac provided the Riverside exemplars. That is not the case here. Since it seems everyone here is trying to solve the mystery of the Zodiac and of the Bates homicide, we shouldn’t make conclusions where they don’t exist. If we need to defend our conclusions in court, which we’ll need to do if successful, we’ll need to show why one QDE is correct and another is not. I feel the best way to do that is to investigate Bates separately, and hope evidence further downstream will help support the QDE one way or the other.

If people want to connect them, that’s perfectly their option. I’ll keep them separate for the time being.

Thanks!

Look at the graphic I provided. Morrill says the Riverside materials are a definite strong match to the Zodiac materials. The FBI expert is not as definite, but does note that the Riverside writings and the Zodiac writings have "consistent hand printing characteristics" so that they could all be done by one author.

Also look in particular at the Riverside "R" and candy cane "F" compared to the Zodiac "R" and candy cane "F". Those matches are very strong, startling even. Near identical.

Agreed, RPD doesn’t think that Bates was killed by Zodiac, they thought there was a possibility years earlier, hence looking into it sending a letter to Napa County Sheriff’s dept, however, they have long believed ‘Bob Barnett’ was the killer despite DNA evidence found not matching him. I also think that RPD & Zodiac investigators likely have concluded that Zodiac didn’t kill Bates. I agree with both RPD & Zodiac investigators that Cheri wasn’t killed by Zodiac. But that doesn’t diminish the fact that the writings, words, phrases, M.O. etc, is quite similar in the two cases.

But how can you agree with RPD if they still think BB is the perp?

I should have clarified, I think that they are correct that Zodiac didn’t kill Bates. I don’t necessarily agree with whether or not Barnett was responsible for Bates or not, time may tell. As far as the writing in her case, that’s from Zodiac all day long, I’d bet my house on it

CMLO–

Please feel free to voice your opinion. I am a moderator here and I share a different opinion than morf…we have had our debates, but I think it is a good thing to do so–when we all work together, nicely.

What you have pointed out is truth. Morrill and Shimoda disagreed…on more than one Zodiac communique. The FBI ultimately said the Riverside writings were inconclusive. They said it MAY have been as there were similarities, but in the end…didn’t confirm anything.

See the following link. viewtopic.php?f=33&t=90 –Outlined in red is part of it, but the "inconclusive" part wasn’t made a part of the outline. The FBI would tell you exactly what that report reads.

What Tahoe wrote was correct. People tend to get dug in, and stuck to their opinions here on both sides of debates(my self included ) but I certainly don’t want to stop you from posting, even if you’re wrong… Just kidding

If you believe Bates was killed by the Zodiac, then that is where I am sure your investigation has started. But since Bates is NOT a fact,

Too much to respond to, so I’ll only touch on this.

This is where much of the confusion in this debate happens.
The question is not ‘who killed Bates’ the question is really ‘are the Riverside writings connected to the Zodiac case.’

Bates (and I’m not saying we dont have sympathy) could have been killed by anyone, so everyone is a suspect.

The writing has 2 realistic answers.

YES they are connected, is supported by a great deal of evidence. Even if the handwriting experts are split, there are many other things that line up.

NO… Well we don’t hear a good answer for this opinion. It leaves all the things that line up as coincidence. It’s never a good idea to ignore evidence and close the door to a possible connection.

That’s what gets missed a lot in discussion of Cheri’s case- it deserves to be solved, Zodiac or not. She was a good girl, 18 years old, or should I say young, with an entire life ahead of her. The fact that her case is unsolved and that the scum bag that nearly cut her head off has gotten away with it for over 50 years makes me sick. Cheri’s case in so very interesting on it’s own, even if the Zodiac was never connected to it. I am surprise there’s never been a documentary done on her case, 48 hours, or the like.

While you have written that the writing has two realistic answers (YES and NO), you have theoretically only provided one which seems to indicate your mind is made up. And that is perfectly fine. Like I said, my intent is not to change minds; it is to learn. And if someone else learns in the process, even better.

You said on the one hand (YES) they are connected and are supported by "a great deal of evidence"…Even if the handwriting experts are split. On the other hand you said (NO) they are not related but no one has a good answer for this opinion" and it’s never good to ignore evidence and close the door on a possible connection. In essence, someone can think they are connected regardless of whether the experts can agree or not, or someone can agree they are not connected and be wrong because the evidence does not support that belief so they should pick (YES). Have I read that correctly? If not, I apologize.

From an investigative perspective, there are two realistic answers.

YES- An investigator can accept Mr. Morrill’s analysis.
NO- An investigator can accept another QDE’s analysis.

You shouldn’t qualify your (YES) by saying "there are many other things that line up" in the same sentence you say "Even if the handwriting experts are split…" They are contradicting fragments because if experts are split, then isn’t it logical to expect many things NOT to line up?

And if your intent was to give two unbiased choices, you also shouldn’t immediately disqualify your (NO) by saying no one can give a good answer for that opinion, especially if your first choice states "handwriting experts are split." I think that qualifies as a good reason for some to think they are not connected.

If EVERY QDE opined there was a connection, we can all agree Zodiac provided the Riverside exemplars. That is not the case here. Since it seems everyone here is trying to solve the mystery of the Zodiac and of the Bates homicide, we shouldn’t make conclusions where they don’t exist. If we need to defend our conclusions in court, which we’ll need to do if successful, we’ll need to show why one QDE is correct and another is not. I feel the best way to do that is to investigate Bates separately, and hope evidence further downstream will help support the QDE one way or the other.

If people want to connect them, that’s perfectly their option. I’ll keep them separate for the time being.

Thanks!

Just curious, do you have the names handy of the examiners that disagreed with Morrill on his findings? And I’m not talking the forged 78 letter, which technically was from Zodiac, since somebody traced his letters and Morrill worked from a copy of it as opposed to an original document. I’m asking for the early Zodiac & Bates stuff, who were the experts?

Look at the graphic I provided. Morrill says the Riverside materials are a definite strong match to the Zodiac materials. The FBI expert is not as definite, but does note that the Riverside writings and the Zodiac writings have "consistent hand printing characteristics" so that they could all be done by one author.

Also look in particular at the Riverside "R" and candy cane "F" compared to the Zodiac "R" and candy cane "F". Those matches are very strong, startling even. Near identical.

That’s what I don’t understand as far as the nay-sayers. To me, isn’t the most obvious answer likely the right one?

*Bates letter & desk writer chose the same odd words & phrases

*Both misspell the same odd words

*Both want their letters published in the papers

*I am no documents examiner, but I can clearly see an identical match between the candy cane F’s on the Berryessa car door and on the Riverside desk top, as well as other letters

*The M.O. is clearly similar in the writings, and approach of the Bates writer & zodiac, and a highly respected and skilled expert doc examiner linked the writings.

With all of that, again, aren’t the two persons most likely one and the same? For those that disagree with Morrill & the Zodiac investigators, can you please explain your position?

The Zodiac responded immediately with the ‘Debut of Zodiac’ letter when pressed by Vallejo cop Jack Stiltz. He replied quickly to Chief Martin Lee with the ‘Bus Bomb’ letter, when Lee doubted Zodiac entered the park and also made mistakes. The big spread on the Riverside connection by Paul Avery was dated November 16th 1970, yet Zodiac didn’t corroborate this connection until March 13th 1971. He applied an equally similar ‘hesitation’ after LHR. For a man with an eagerness to reply, and insatiable ego, why the gap of four months. Does this tell you something ? I believe his periods of rest tell us more about the killer than when he was active.

A 4 month gap with Kathleen Johns as well: viewtopic.php?f=34&t=133

Just curious, Richard. Are you questioning LHR?

No Tahoe, I just considered that it may have been the closest to his residence, so therefore let the ‘heat’ die down and allowed the investigation to run the course it was running, because it obviously wasn’t at that point necessarily pointing to a lone ‘madman’ or burgeoning serial killer. Possibly the murders were just too close for comfort. I don’t doubt any of the crimes usually credited to Zodiac. I was just curious as to his delay in the case of Riverside after the Avery article.

Ok, just wanted to be sure. I was thinking maybe you had new ideas, considering the timeline.

No such luck, but a phone call from the same payphone as BRS is a distinct possibility.

Regarding the Lake Herman Road mystery caller, Owen identifies two possibilities: A car parked next to the Rambler, probably Zodiac, and also a passing car, heading towards Vallejo. Occupants of either car could be contenders. I suppose if police had an exact call time in either crime they likely would have disclosed at least that much. In 1966 or 1968, would there be a protocol to log every call? Is there any hint or hope that a record exists in either case?

If they are forthcoming. If a phone call was placed it would have been approximately 11.20-11.28.
Pierre Bidou "Initially, they were told a woman was lying outside a car; they thought they were being sent to a crash. Police at first speculated it might have been a crank call, but the officers headed back north. But when they arrived, Bidou realized it was no crank call and no car accident. Instead, it was a sinister crime scene."
The vehicle that passed Owen by the Borges Ranch couldn’t have been the killer, because the victims were not in the turnout at that point in time.

"The vehicle that passed Owen by the Borges Ranch couldn’t have been the killer, because the victims were not in the turnout at that point in time."
Thanks Richard, I was confused. I thought the kids were in the turnout for a while before Owen, and that this car that passed Owen would have seen the parked cars first and possibly in range to hear the gunshots. I should probably re-read the reports before badgering you further!