The vehicle heading towards Vallejo spotted by James Owen would have passed the turnout just prior to him reaching it. The kids were in the turnout a while before Owen passed, but when he passed they were not lying dead on the turnout floor. Since he had already encountered the vehicle passing him by the Borges Ranch, heading to Vallejo, this vehicle could not hold the killer. I phrased the above reply incorrectly.
The Borges Ranch is actually 1.5 miles from the turnout, not 2.7 miles as stated in the police report. This journey time is approximately 3 minutes. Therefore, let us assume James Owen passes the turnout at 11.09 pm.
He spots the unknown vehicle by the Borges Ranch at 11.06 pm. It is heading towards Vallejo.
This vehicle therefore must have passed the turnout at 11.03 pm.
James Owen passed the turnout at 11.09 pm.
If the bodies were not lying in the turnout at 11.09 pm, the couple were presumably still alive.
This being the case, if they were still alive at 11.09 pm, they were still alive at 11.03 pm, so the unknown vehicle could not be responsible for the murders.

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.

The silence on his part was very telling by Zodiac. I think he was nervous that they had found out about his Riverside activity, and background, and might be knocking on his door at any minute, so he laid low and kept quiet, and didn’t write for a long time. In fact, besides writing the letter taking responsibility for Bates, when is the next time he writes? Not for 3 years. In fact, if there’s a possibility that Zodiac really wrote the Albany Medical Center threat in 1973(the FBI can’t rule that out based on Docs exam)then you could almost look at the Bates connection as something that caused Zodiac to flee to another state,before feeling safe enough to come back and start writing in 1974. As Richard alluded to, Zodiac loved to bask in the attention, and take credit for crimes he likely didn’t commit, so when the Bates connection was made, why not step right up immediately and take advantage of the spotlight? I think it’s because Riverside was a clue to his identity

That is a good point Mike. Although I’m not convinced of a Riverside connection, I certainly am not closed on the idea, and this article may have given him food for thought.

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?[/quote]

Okay, I’ll bite. I said that I remain unconvinced of a Z-Riverside link. But that doesn’t mean I’m certain there is none. I remain open to accepting there is Z involvement.

And please note that if I voice a contrary opinion (on this or anything) i ‘m not looking to piss on anyone’s parade, or trying to make you look bad. It does seem that you are, morf, kinda saying that back though. Like, "if you can’t see it, i can’t help you", and "read the reports". That’s insulting.

Here’s a few things i consider give me the right to have reservations:-

1. Morrill may have been wrong. The FBI in 1974 looked at all original Z-Bates writings. Result – not determined they were the same writer.

The 1978 FBI analysis used Riverside photocopies and photos, not originals. Again, they didn’t determine it was the same writer, with the caveats AK mentioned (above). Shimoda wasn’t with Morrill on this either, was he?

Plus, this is an inexact science dependent on "expert opinion". Which expert’s right? Morrill? FBI 74? FBI 78? Shimoda?

2. Cheri Jo was killed with certainty (slashed jugular). Even "by knife", Cecelia Shephard wasn’t finished off by Zodiac right off. Z exited his canonical crime scenes leaving 5 out of 7 attack victims still alive.

3. Riverside writer name-checks the victim, "Bates". Zodiac never does ("girl", "boy", "cabbie", "teenagers").

4. The cherry-picking of the odd R and candy-cane F does not convince me. Please anyone, go look at the 3 Bates envelopes, plus the Patricia Hautz one (#4 in the 1967 list) and the definite Z envelopes.
http://www.zodiackiller.com/Letters.html
There’s only so many ways to do felt pen retard-writing whilst wearing gloves. And when Pat Hautz prints "editor", she’s probably as close to Z as your riverside guy.

5. I’ll grant you, the "twich" and "squirm" thing is pretty good, especially the spelling. But still, two descriptions of the same thing (reflexes of a victim being attacked) using the two most apt words is not to me surprising (no one would use alternatives like "she spasmodically recoiled").

6. Z liked to mess with the cops. Fessing up to Riverside activity genuinely? Or a nice opportunity handed to him to green-light some more "bussy work" for the blue meanies? Especially hundreds of miles away. (… I do like your idea though, morf, about him going quiet after Riverside comes up.)

Just a little outline of why i remain unconvinced.

I’d LOVE to be certain about things in these cases (did Z do LHR?, LB?, Bates?, which letters are Z or not? those frickin’ ciphers etc.)

Actually to help RTF, 6 of the 7 victims were likely still alive when Zodiac left the crime scenes. The murders certainly were not his primary objective, but what came after, the publicity.
Handwriting analysis is a complimentary tool and is essentially subjective. If we reverse the process of analyzing handwrting, just look at the writing on the car door. the letter E and number 6 vary in every instance, so just selecting one alphabetical letter from here and one from there is inherently flawed. Take the number 6 below. One could argue that is written by four different individuals, and would be if that number 6 was presented from four different sources or letters. Handwriting analysis is undoubtedly an aid, but is not an exact science.

The vehicle heading towards Vallejo spotted by James Owen would have passed the turnout just prior to him reaching it. The kids were in the turnout a while before Owen passed, but when he passed they were not lying dead on the turnout floor. Since he had already encountered the vehicle passing him by the Borges Ranch, heading to Vallejo, this vehicle could not hold the killer. I phrased the above reply incorrectly.
The Borges Ranch is actually 1.5 miles from the turnout, not 2.7 miles as stated in the police report. This journey time is approximately 3 minutes. Therefore, let us assume James Owen passes the turnout at 11.09 pm.
He spots the unknown vehicle by the Borges Ranch at 11.06 pm. It is heading towards Vallejo.
This vehicle therefore must have passed the turnout at 11.03 pm.
James Owen passed the turnout at 11.09 pm.
If the bodies were not lying in the turnout at 11.09 pm, the couple were presumably still alive.
This being the case, if they were still alive at 11.09 pm, they were still alive at 11.03 pm, so the unknown vehicle could not be responsible for the murders.

Hi Richard
You give an estimate of 11:09 that the kids were still alive. Is there a documented record showing when the time was that officer Richard Hoffman made his first pass through that area and all was clear?
Thanks

Oops do I have this confused with Blue Rock?

Richard Hoffman was one of the first responders at Blue Rock Springs, not LHR. Have I misunderstood your question.
Oh I see you have realized bmichelle.

Richard Hoffman was one of the first responders at Blue Rock Springs, not LHR. Have I misunderstood your question.

No you were correct. I questioned myself above with a oops
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.

Mr. Wilks,

I looked at the graphic which shows exactly why Mr. Morrill could not have definitively linked the Zodiac. First, you should not be surprised the R and F are similar; you should be more surprised if many other people’s exemplars do NOT show a similarity to those common traits in the R and F. (J. Richard Gentry Ph.D., Psychology)

How did Mr. Morrill eliminate Mr. Alan through handwriting? He used exemplars where Mr. Alan had written with both, his dominant and recessive, hands. He also had Mr. Alan write terminology commonly associated with the Zodiac. Are we in agreement there? If not, ignore the next point but for those of you that agree, continue.

Mr. Morrill followed proper procedure to eliminate Mr. Alan. Why? This is because the suspects exemplars should be as similar as possible to the QD. This includes the writing instrument and paper because people tend to write different switching between pencil and pen, and between ruled paper and un-ruled paper. The suspects exemplars should also contain words and combinations of letters present in the QD. (Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Science 8th and 9th Editions)

Mr. Morrill could NOT have followed procedure with the Riverside exemplars because he had no known Zodiac exemplars written on a desktop, or with a pencil on ruled paper with the recessive hand. The exemplars he used for comparison were on unruled paper written with a blue felt pen using dominant hand. That alone should indicate why Mr. Morrill could not have made a DEFINITIVE match. He either was correct about Riverside and erred with Mr. Alan, or correct with Mr. Alan and erred with Riverside.

The QDE I spoke with supports this assertion Mr. Morrill could not have given a definitive conclusion. She would not give a definitive conclusion either. I have been informed on this thread that Mr. Morrill had access to the originals (so this in some way qualifies his conclusions?). All QDE conclusions are subjective and not definitive. They are interpreted different ways by different people. As far as originals go, almost all QDE’s use copies. Originals should be maintained for evidence. Using copies minimizes the number of handlers in the Chain of Custody, and reduces the chance of contamination or loss. (David A. Katz, MSc, Chemistry, Frequent Contributor to Forensic Newsletter.) Mr. Morrill may very well have used the originals, but that in no way disqualifies another QDE’s analysis in a court of law.

Every time I google zodiac killer and handwriting, it always seems to come back to the R and F. There are 62 characters in the English language. Though the unconscious mind of a writer can never write the exact way two times in a row, we should expect to see more unique characteristics. I say unique characteristics and not similarities because most school-taught people learn from a respective copybook (I have 6 for 6 different languages due to my past occupation). It would not be uncommon to find a few similarities in handwriting between different donors.

I’ll close this out with a quote from someone I hold in high regard and has never given me reason to doubt his ability. (He is on Facebook if some choose to follow him.) His name is Paul Westwood. He is the former Director of the Document Examinations Section of the Commonwealth Police, Australian Federal Police and the Australian Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. He is currently in private practice. He said, "Any two writings in the same language will exhibit similarities, but for us as experts, to express a view (not a definitive conclusion) that two writings are by the same person, you just can’t consider the similarities. You also have to take account of the difference."

I am not a QDE but I believe I presented enough qualified information to show we cannot link the Zodiac to Bates on the exemplars alone. Until there is TRUE evidence connecting the two, we are only disadvantaging ourselves if we begin the Zodiac investigation in 1966. Unless, as I stated earlier, someone NEEDS Bates to be connected for their theory.

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?

That is a good question, Mr. Morf. I will make that my next assignment. I was actually going off information that was already on a post I read. I naturally believed it had been vetted or agreed upon. I will do the research and get back in a couple days. If I cannot locate any names, I’ll notify you as well and conclude there may not have been QDE’s in disagreement. I’ll be heading out tomorrow but I’ll be back before the week is out.

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?

Is there proof it was traced? If so, how was it proven? And, if it was traced, isn’t this something a trained document examiner would recognize…lack of flow, etc? EXACT letter matches?

Morrill was trained to know the difference. That includes tracing someone’s writing. Thanks kind of what forgers do sometimes.

***

….I’ll close this out with a quote from someone I hold in high regard and has never given me reason to doubt his ability. (He is on Facebook if some choose to follow him.) His name is Paul Westwood. He is the former Director of the Document Examinations Section of the Commonwealth Police, Australian Federal Police and the Australian Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. He is currently in private practice. He said, "Any two writings in the same language will exhibit similarities, but for us as experts, to express a view (not a definitive conclusion) that two writings are by the same person, you just can’t consider the similarities. You also have to take account of the difference."

Something very important…I do agree.

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?

That is a good question, Mr. Morf. I will make that my next assignment. I was actually going off information that was already on a post I read. I naturally believed it had been vetted or agreed upon. I will do the research and get back in a couple days. If I cannot locate any names, I’ll notify you as well and conclude there may not have been QDE’s in disagreement. I’ll be heading out tomorrow but I’ll be back before the week is out.

Thanks

Here is your disagreement on the Riverside letters by Mr Shimoda. FBI files, Zodiac 5, page 50/249

Thanks for posting. I’m not of the opinion Shimoda was not good at his job, but Morrill was DOJ CA states top handwriting expert. Shimoda was part of the post office crime lab.

Morrill still comes off as more experienced and definitely had more experience with the Zodiac letters and handwriting.

http://www.zodiackillerfacts.com/movie.htm

FACT: Sherwood Morrill was a respected professional who served as Questioned Documents Expert for the Department of Justice until the mid-1970s. He continued to provide analysis of the Zodiac’s letters at the request of investigators, and he even defended David Toschi amid rumors that the inspector had forged a Zodiac letter in 1978. Like most intelligent and even eccentric experts, Morrill had critics who sometimes considered his conclusions controversial. Morrill concluded that the Zodiac was responsible for several writings connected to an unsolved crime in Riverside, California, including a poem written on the surface of a wooden desk. Some handwriting experts and investigators questioned Morrill’s conclusions concerning these writings while others agreed with his findings.

Is there proof it was traced? If so, how was it proven? And, if it was traced, isn’t this something a trained document examiner would recognize…lack of flow, etc? EXACT letter matches?

Morrill was trained to know the difference. That includes tracing someone’s writing. Thanks kind of what forgers do sometimes.

We have gone over this before, but there were serious political reasons regarding the 1978 letter and Toschi. It seems likely that Morrill was in a position to have to defend Toschi as the writer of the 1978 letter.

And please don’t thank the forger!