Yes, bmichelle…you most certainly did notice! I missed that Dec. date. I think your comments are accurate.

Great observation guy’s!!! it’s very interesting that the Pathologist’s letter may be in response to the confession letter.

I was confused about the date. Sorry.

The article says the knife went in at least 3 inches. A hoaxer reading that article would not have enough info to determine the knife was definitely 3 inches, and thus "small". For all a hoaxer knew from reading that article it could have been a 5 inch knife that only went in 3 inches, or even a 7 inch knife that only went in 3 inches. Thus from that limited information the knife could have been small, medium or large. Why would a hoaxer take a chance and say "small"? Why not just say knife?

More importantly, I turn back to the call, which nobody has offered a good explanation for how a hoaxer would know. That same article notes a woman heard a scream at 10:30. The same article also notes that woman did "not call" police. Yet the RPD memo states that the letter writer was correct in asserting that there WAS a call that night. And the FBI notes that along with knowing details of the manner of the murder, the fact that the letter writer knew about the call made that night is a reason the RPD concludes that the letter writer is "actually the murderer".

How and why would a hoaxer, after reading that an earwitness did NOT call the police that night, correctly assert that a call was made that night?

Interesting thoughts AK. The author says the call was ‘just a warning’. Do you think he may have actually called before the crime or afterwards as Zodiac would later do?

Apologies for interjecting on a good debate but ‘earwitness’ …. excellent.

Interesting thoughts AK. The author says the call was ‘just a warning’. Do you think he may have actually called before the crime or afterwards as Zodiac would later do?

I don’t know, but its a good question. He said in the letter "Yes I did make that call to you also. It was just a warning". So I don’t think the call was from someone saying they saw or heard something strange. It makes me think that the call that did come was from the killer either taking credit for the crime or stating in advance of the crime that he was going to kill. Hence the suggestion that the call was a "warning". If the call came in slightly after the murder the same night, and even more so if it came before the murder as a "warning", then there can be little doubt that the caller was the murderer, and since the letter writer correctly knew this detail, which is the exact opposite of what appeared in the paper, the letter writer cannot be a mere hoaxer. He must be, as RPD and FBI concluded, the "actual murderer".

[Hi Trav! I don’t think I invented "earwitness", but I’ll gladly take credit for it ].

Well they printed the gruesome thing for the public, had an investigation into its claims, and admitted there was a call that the earwitness didn’t make… so they clearly couldn’t disprove it. Publishing the letter must have been a difficult decision. That the author offered a "small knife" description even though he could not otherwise have known for sure this was the case is also a keen observation. Nice work

@AK

It would for sure be a valid point if it could be confirmed when the call came in and what was said.

Also, can you share the portion of the FBI documentation where they (the FBI) confirm the letter writer was her killer? All I can find is the portion where they mentioned what the RPD officer stated.

Simply put, there is nothing in that letter, specifically, that only the killer could have known. Did the knife tip actually even break off? I can’t recall. Either way,this article appeared in San Bernardino papers, the town next over from Riverside.
Authorities in the Bates case and the Zodiac case are convinced, Zodiac did not kill Cheri. Did he write the letters in here case? That’s still on the table. I think that physical evidence, DNA, etc has led them to this conclusion. I’m hoping that news will be forthcoming, as I have heard rumblings that there may be some movement in both the Zodiac, and Bates cases, that I can’t give too many specifics about.

At this point, I’d have to say,it’s quite likely Zodiac did NOT kill Cheri, but regardless, two points need to be focused on:

1) Cheri’s case, no matter who killed her, needs to be solved. She deserves justice.

2)If Zodiac did not kill Cheri,but wrote the letters in her case as well as the RCC desk poem, that’s a major clue that needs to be properly followed up on and investigated. That would eliminate a lot of suspects.

Morf, did you recently come across info that led you to conclude that Zodiac did not murder Cheri Jo ?

@AK

It would for sure be a valid point if it could be confirmed when the call came in and what was said.

Also, can you share the portion of the FBI documentation where they (the FBI) confirm the letter writer was her killer? All I can find is the portion where they mentioned what the RPD officer stated.

The FBI memo states that RPD advised them that there was a call made to the police that night, so the letter writer was correct about that undisclosed fact, they state the RPD’s conclusion that the letter writer is actually the killer and they don’t state any disagreement with that conclusion. How do we know that the FBI accepts the letter writer is actually the killer? By the way they treat the letter. They do not dismiss the letter as likely a hoaxer and take no further action. Instead, they treat the letter as if it likely came from the actual killer. They give the letter to the Assistant US Attorney to decide on applicability for legal action and they state that they will look in their anonymous letter file to see if anything matches to this letter.

So they state the very good reasons RPD considers the letter to be from the killer, give the conclusion of RPD that it is from the killer and then note two further actions they do with the letter consistent with them agreeing with the RPD conclusion that the letter is from the killer. Though they don’t flat out state that they agree with the RPD conclusion, all of that makes it sufficient for me to surmise that they agreed with the stated RPD conclusion. And regardless of an explicitly stated conclusion by the FBI, the fact that the call was undisclosed, the newspaper even saying a call was NOT made, yet the letter writer correctly states that a call was made, is very convincing to me that the letter was the actual killer as RPD concluded. The fact that the writer said the call was a "warning", seeming to indicate it was made before the murder, is an even more intriguing possibility, and if true, would add to what is the already convincing evidence (to RPD, me and others anyway) that the caller was the killer and the writer.

I see that AK, I just don’t come to the same conclusion as you.

It reads, "the call to the police department"….it doesn’t say when. Do we have documentation a call was made the night of her murder?

There is no confirmation by the FBI. It simply states the Confession Letter was discussed with John Lally and he can’t say it’s extortion—because no victim is named (HUH??–"Miss Bates"), or "details enough to pinpoint a victim"…..but it will be looked at further and confirmed in a letter. Lally wouldn’t even acknowledge a victim…how can it be said he concurred with the RPD?

This document is for the Director of the FBI and information is provided him to look into it further. There is no conclusion other that that of the RPD…and even they were incorrect with part of the information provided.

he can’t say it’s extortion—because no victim is named (HUH??–"Miss Bates"), or "details enough to pinpoint a victim"

lol that was my first thought too. I think that means what it says though – ie – no ‘victim of extortion’ was named. The ‘victim of murder’ was obviously CJB.

he can’t say it’s extortion—because no victim is named (HUH??–"Miss Bates"), or "details enough to pinpoint a victim"

lol that was my first thought too. I think that means what it says though – ie – no ‘victim of extortion’ was named. The ‘victim of murder’ was obviously CJB.

I sure hope so!! Really…isn’t extortion the only way the FBI could get involved? No kidnapping or traveling across state lines…

Really…isn’t extortion the only way the FBI could get involved? No kidnapping or traveling across state lines…

I always believed that was the case, yes. Hope my last reply was relevant and in context btw. I’m just dipping in an out here.

I think Trav is right, no specific victim of extortion is identified. If the FBI thought the letter was from a hoaxer, they would not be taking it to the local US Attorney’s for a second time, and they would not be searching their letter file to see if this letter matches any in that file. That is enough to convince me the FBI did not disagree with the stated RPD conclusion.

Anyway, regardless of the opinion of the FBI, nobody has yet explained to me how a hoaxer correctly stated there was a call made to police, when the newspaper explicitly stated there was not a call.