You both make some good points. But neither of you deal with the most convincing piece of evidence, the phone call. The letter writer says he made a phone call that night, and RPD confirms there was a call made that night. That info was not in any papers. For a hoaxer to just guess there was a call that night seems incredible to me.

Which call is RPD actually confirming? They did say there was a call about a loud scream. They never confirmed a call from the alleged killer

Wasn’t that phone call listed on the pert chart at Zodiackiller.com? If it is listed there, it would not be a call from the witness saying she heard a scream at 10:30 pm.
I have not seen any mention of the kick to her head in any newspaper, that could not be a lucky guess.

When the killer said to Cheri Jo "It’s about time", I think his plan was to kill her at the same time as the date being 10/30, he likes numbers and specific time, from what I know of him. That can account for the lapse of time that hasn’t been accounted for, he wanted to stall for the time to be 10:30.

I also believe that the tiny Catholic praying book that was left with the Lake B killing costume in my car Sept 69 ,could very well have been Cheri Jo’s, she is the only Catholic victim that I know of. There was also a girls Timex watch with the things put in my car, I have asked RPD if she was missing her watch, but they have not answered, neither has Napa. I did not see any watch’s listed in the evidence reports, most students back then wore watches. (He left that watch in my car and other odd things with the costume for a reason) He has a reason for everything that he does.

AK I am with you on this 100 percent, but I don’t see changing the minds of those who have their minds made up.

The truth will be found out soon I hope, I feel it in my bones.

Another important detail in the Confession letter was " I grabbed her around the neck with my hand over her mouth and my
other hand with a SMALL KNIFE at her throat." the detail about the SMALL KNIFE was not in the news media. the autopsy
report said the knife blade was 3.5 inches long and 1/2 inch wide, that is a small knife, probably a pocket knife.
How would a hoaxer know to include that detail ?
Wouldn’t a hoaxer have just referred to the knife as " A KNIFE " and not specify the size of the knife ?

The distributor being messed with was mentioned in the afternoon Riverside paper the day she was found.

Sandy, in this same article (see page 2) the workers are mentioned. http://www.zodiackiller.com/BatesHeadline1.html

via zodiackiller.com

Another important detail in the Confession letter was " I grabbed her around the neck with my hand over her mouth and my
other hand with a SMALL KNIFE at her throat." the detail about the SMALL KNIFE was not in the news media. the autopsy
report said the knife blade was 3.5 inches long and 1/2 inch wide, that is a small knife, probably a pocket knife.
How would a hoaxer know to include that detail ?
Wouldn’t a hoaxer have just referred to the knife as " A KNIFE " and not specify the size of the knife ?

Hi monarch,

This is a valid point, but I do believe I have read "small knife" in one of the newspaper articles–although I would have to go back and confirm the date.

The most curious claim in the confession letter for me is that he stabbed the victim and broke the knife blade. Considering that he wrote to the police presumably hoping that they would believe him, why add that detail? Did he want them to be uncertain? I suppose it would be ridiculous to consider that Cheri was stabbed and that a broken blade was in fact discovered and that this conclusive detail was not disclosed. Is there a consensus view on the author’s broken blade comment?

The Confession letter doesn’t necessarily say the blade broke, it only said the "knife broke".

The Confession letter doesn’t necessarily say the blade broke, it only said the "knife broke".

Yes, if it was a folding pocketknife perhaps the hinge mechanism broke.

Thank you, that is an important distinction Richard. I guess it doesn’t exactly say stab either. "I plunged the knife into her and it broke. I then finished the job by cutting her throat." I had interpreted that as a stabbing followed by a fatal throat wound and wondered how his broken knife was functional to "finish the job"

Another important detail in the Confession letter was " I grabbed her around the neck with my hand over her mouth and my
other hand with a SMALL KNIFE at her throat." the detail about the SMALL KNIFE was not in the news media. the autopsy
report said the knife blade was 3.5 inches long and 1/2 inch wide, that is a small knife, probably a pocket knife.
How would a hoaxer know to include that detail ?
Wouldn’t a hoaxer have just referred to the knife as " A KNIFE " and not specify the size of the knife ?

Hi monarch,

This is a valid point, but I do believe I have read "small knife" in one of the newspaper articles–although I would have to go back and confirm the date.

I don’t recall reading about the "small knife" in the newspaper articles from 1966. no one would have known about the size of the
blade until after the autopsy was completed.
So only the pathologist and the RPD Detectives would have known about that detail, I would think that is a detail they would keep
confidential.

Another important detail in the Confession letter was " I grabbed her around the neck with my hand over her mouth and my
other hand with a SMALL KNIFE at her throat." the detail about the SMALL KNIFE was not in the news media. the autopsy
report said the knife blade was 3.5 inches long and 1/2 inch wide, that is a small knife, probably a pocket knife.
How would a hoaxer know to include that detail ?
Wouldn’t a hoaxer have just referred to the knife as " A KNIFE " and not specify the size of the knife ?

Hi monarch,

This is a valid point, but I do believe I have read "small knife" in one of the newspaper articles–although I would have to go back and confirm the date.

I don’t recall reading about the "small knife" in the newspaper articles from 1966. no one would have known about the size of the
blade until after the autopsy was completed.
So only the pathologist and the RPD Detectives would have known about that detail, I would think that is a detail they would keep
confidential.

Below it is mentioned "at least 3 inches"….while this could be argued that the knife could have been much bigger, I think many would read it as a knife around that size.

(thx seagull for the article posted here: viewtopic.php?f=33&t=93)

Looking back at the statement from the pathologist, I noticed it was dated at the end of December, 1966. Of course the autopsy was completed much sooner.

This would seem (at least in part) to be in response to the Confession Letter…especially if we consider the use of the word "plunged". Did someone ask the Dr’s thoughts about the letter writer’s comments and if he felt the person who wrote the letter was the person who killed her? He seems to be dismissing what was written in the Confession letter…or maybe too, someone in the RPD!

That newspaper that mentioned the knife was at least 3 inches long is dated Nov. 2, which is just after the police got the confession letter. Is there any mention of knife size or wound depth early enough that the letter writer could have read it?

That newspaper that mentioned the knife was at least 3 inches long is dated Nov. 2, which is just after the police got the confession letter. Is there any mention of knife size or wound depth early enough that the letter writer could have read it?

Not sure I’m understanding, AK. The Confession Letter was mailed on November 29th. The writer could have read about the knife in the paper.

Quoting myself

Post by bmichelle » Fri Jul 28, 2017 3:17 pm

"From my perspective it still looks as if they were trying to determine if the confession letter was not the work of the killer. Considering the dates of the death- when the confession letter was sent and the MD letter dated in Dec. So they still were not sure who wrote the letter."

I Agee with you Tahoe. That is what I, too, was trying to state above.