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.

I agree.

Possibility does not equal Probability.

In all probability, the killer wrote the confession.

The low possibly, a hoaxer picked out information from news sources, but also managed to pick a crime that wouldn’t be solved for 50 years.

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.

I appreciate your thoughts on this AK. Honestly, I don’t have a reason to lean one way or another.

I don’t think the FBI agreed or disagreed–they were looking into it, as they should.

I think the letter writer could have been the caller, that is why I am curious as to when the call was made.

Averly & Tahoe – Well said. I have seen other FBI memos, and in dealing with letters they believe to be hoaxes, they make a dismissive comment and state no further action will be taken. So I read this memo, with the RPD statements and the further actions taken, as being confirmation they agree with RPD.

I agree it is not definitive, but a matter of probability. The letter writer knew correct details of the manner of murder, he knew small knife when what was in the newspaper still left room for doubt.

Most importantly, despite the newspaper saying no call was made, he correctly states there was a call. Is it possible a hoaxer could correctly guess all these things? I suppose it’s possible. But it seems highly unlikely. It seems highly probable that the letter writer is the killer.

And applying Occam’s Razor, that is the simplest, most direct and logical probable explanation. And maybe that is the best we can say, and leave it there. But it has been an interesting debate and discussion, which has brought to light some previously overlooked evidence.

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 ?

Sorry,I can’t really comment more

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…

What is the date of the fBI involement? Probably after the Zodiac murders,which they were involved with, and investigating Bates as a possible Z murder

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.

We don’t have any access to all of the Riverside area papers, perhaps one article did mention the call,and we haven’t seen it

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

Sorry,I can’t really comment more

Morf–The FBI document about the Confession letter, phone call, etc. is dated 12/1/66…which interestingly (imo) is before the pathologist letter.

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.

We don’t have any access to all of the Riverside area papers, perhaps one article did mention the call,and we haven’t seen it

Boy, I would say maybe that is possible, but it is highly unlikely. With the internet and the good research skills of you and several other members here, I think all articles on the Bates murder in local papers have been found. I think it is very unlikely that a newspaper mentioned the call, which police were not giving out as information. And even if some local paper did mention a call, we know that the most prominent local paper explicitly stated that there was no call. A hoaxer reading one paper saying there was a call and one paper saying there was no call would likely play it safe and just not mention a call, not knowing which paper was accurate.

But I just think it is highly unlikely with modern internet search, dozens of good researchers who have spent years on the case, all the many articles that have been found and no paper yet found mentioning a call. I don’t think there was any paper that mentioned the call. At best, it is highly unlikely, and we are left with a local paper saying there was no call, and yet the letter writer correctly states there was a call. I can’t accept that as a lucky guess, and together with the other things he got right, I think the best, most logical explanation is that probably to almost certainly, the letter writer was the killer.

What we don’t see are more of the Press Newspaper articles…day or evening edition. Surely there were more in the days following her death.

AK, I think the newspapers were just saying the women did not call to report the scream.

Right, the newspaper is saying that the woman who heard the scream did not call the police. And of all the other articles that have been found, none mention the police getting a call. My question remains, how did the letter writer correctly know a call had been made? A lucky guess? I just can’t buy that.

The proof is not absolute. I admit there is a small amount of room for some doubt and debate, but by far the most logical explanation is that the RPD was right, and the letter writer was probably the killer.

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.

There is no official documentation of a phone call to police by the killer in that particular memo (unless you have another one). The FBI memo is just discussing how the author of the Confession letter is attempting to make it appear like he was the killer by mentioning a phone call and the manner of Cheri Jo Bates’ murder. Everything the Confession letter stated was widely available in several newspapers. Furthermore the author of the Confession letter gives the impression he followed Bates out of the library, where she discovered her stricken VW Beetle and was then murdered. None of which could possibly have happened. The four men dressed in work clothes sitting opposite her vehicle, saw Cheri Jo Bates that night and were interviewed by police. They never mentioned ANY suspicious activity around her vehicle, no strange man, and no engine being tampered with. So the claim of I followed her out of the library after two minutes is a lie. The female student present in the alleyway at 9.30 pm recalls no body lying around, so the impression the Confession letter is attempting to forge, as though the crime was one continuous event is also patently false. She didn’t exit the library, discover her tampered vehicle, receive assistance and then get murdered. Had this been the case, the four male eyewitnesses and the female student would all have to be discredited. Along with several ear witnesses who heard screams from the alleyway circa 10.30 pm. Nothing in the Confession letter has any ring of truth to it, at least nothing that couldn’t have been parroted from the newspapers.

Also, let’s not forget the guy in the alley smoking a cigarette. How does he come into play? Did he ever go into the library? Did he simply wait around out of sight waiting for her to come out?

I agree with you Richard, I think that the letter writer did not have to be the killer. Brings me back to this. A)If Cheri was killed by somebody she knew, why would they write the confession letter, mentioning the ‘brushoffs in years past" indication that he knew her, and thus bringing police towards him? B)Why would a stranger that killed her need to write the letter at all? There would be no tie to her. For these reasons, it makes more sense to me that this letter writer was not involved at all in the murder, but was obviously troubled and had issues(and would later become Zodiac)

The female in the alleyway wasn’t waiting for Cheri Jo Bates to come out of the library because Cheri wasn’t in the library. The Mexican-American student recalls Cheri at opening time (6.00 pm), but none of the other 64 attendees to the library that night, including Walter Siebert and Co, who knew Cheri, remember seeing her in the library that night. We simply cannot dismiss 64 eyewitnesses. If we choose to believe she was in the library until 9.00 pm, then we have to discredit 64 people. If we do that, then we might as well dismiss all the eyewitnesses over all the four confirmed crimes as well. The author of the Confession letter as you stated Mike could still be Zodiac. That cannot be ruled out.

Right, the newspaper is saying that the woman who heard the scream did not call the police. And of all the other articles that have been found, none mention the police getting a call. My question remains, how did the letter writer correctly know a call had been made? A lucky guess? I just can’t buy that.

The proof is not absolute. I admit there is a small amount of room for some doubt and debate, but by far the most logical explanation is that the RPD was right, and the letter writer was probably the killer.

AK Wilks

I would say if a/the phone call was received the night of the murder, it was probably the letter writer. But not knowing if/when that call was made leaves me with doubt. The letter writer did not specify when the call was made. Say it was 2 days after the murder… then it could be considered a prank call of the letter writer and not necessarily of the killer of Miss Bates.

I do think the letter is the work of Z.

Morf13 "If Cheri was killed by somebody she knew, why would they write the confession letter, mentioning the ‘brushoffs in years past" indication that he knew her, and thus bringing police towards him?"

Assuming that the author of the Confession letter was not the killer, read the Confession letter again unbiased, and consider the fact it rambles on about "dates", "brush offs", "her warm breast," "beautiful blond", "shapely blue eyed brunette". "babysitting near the little store." This may be not be the language of our killer, but it may be the language of a female hoaxer. who chose this rhetoric to convince you the author was male and throw off investigators. We have just automatically assumed it was a male author, so in the true spirit of sexually equality, I ask you read it again as though it’s a woman author. Then compare it to the JonBenet Ramsey ransom letter.