ive tossed around the idea CJB was murdered elsewhere and dumped back at RCC grounds..but the crime scene photos are hard for me to clearly see..cant really make out intricate details that would indicate the murder occurred there…i just do not like the idea she just walked off with the perp..granted if she knew him that a no go..

One of the reports (I think it was in a newspaper – it sounds like it) says the ground was churned up "like a field" (or similar) – which would lead me to believe she did indeed die right there after what was a fierce struggle, poor Cheri. But WDIK.

Yes, she definitely died right there. Pretty sure the cops, even RPD, would have noticed a distinct lack of blood that would clearly indicate the victim was killed at another scene. That’s crime scene investigation 101.

Plus Cheri’s feet were crossed and her straw purse was situated partly beneath the body. Most killers relocate a body either to hide it, or pose it. She was clearly not posed, then, and the location of her body was hardly a hidden environment since Cheri was found essentially at first light.

To me, and this is my opinion, she was attacked en route to the street in-between houses. He probably did have a car down the street, per the CL, and in my mind, this is how it played out: for whatever reason, he strikes, grabbing her by the hair, drags her close, places his hand over her mouth, and starts stabbing. Two to the front. She fights back, breaks lose. He’s still trying to stab. Knife slips across her cheek and upper lip. She screams, grabs for his hair, scratches his face. All the while their four feet are twisting, kicking the ground into rubble. As she viciously fights to break free, to run, because at this point this is the only chance she has, he throws her to the ground. She’s weak, bleeding, dizzy. He kicks her in the head, knocking her out. She’s not dead, but he knows she has to die. Can’t leave her alive to tell a tale, especially if she knows him, So he grabs her hair, retracts her head, and cuts her throat.

Variants exist. Not sure how well that comports with the CL, although the writer claims he kicked her in the head to shut her up, which seems the writer is claiming she was screaming while down, which makes little sense. Could be the writer just condensed the story.

One thing that DOESN’T ring true is him cutting her throat LAST, after the knife breaks. Kind of hard to nearly decapitate someone with a broken 3.5 inch knife, although I have no experience in the relevant exercise…

Trust me on this one, he liked to travel, and I can more than easily see him doing a "road trip" for a brutal Halloween murder. Such a thing would have been right up his alley, no pun intended. Remember the Halloween card? Yep. For The Zodiac, Bates’ murder would have been a "miracle" of darkness.

I agree most serial killers are highly mobile and love to travel. Part of it is that many are clever enough to spread out their crime sprees across as many different law enforcement jurisdictions as possible. In how many different police jurisdictions did the Zodiac commit his murders? Although it’s a myth that there was a serious problem with different police agencies cooperating with each other on the Zodiac case the fact that different agencies were involved didn’t make it easier especially when all you have is a land line phone and a FAX machine. I’m sure that this was something that the Zodiac was well aware of and used it to his advantage and if he had committed all of his murders in a single area his chances of being caught would have been much higher.

I definitely agree that The Zodiac certainly believed that he had to spread his crimes a bit far and wide, but I’m not sold on the idea he deliberately confused police jurisdictions. He had to know that at the very least such a tactic would drag in the CI & I, and possibly the FBI, especially if he tried to claim Lass, which would make his murder spree a matter of interstate crime.

To me, it’s possible that he just varied his range, for whatever reason. He also may have had another reason that makes little sense to us. He killed two in or near Vallejo, and then struck north at LB. Could have been he chose the lake location because Vallejo was too hot. Or he was bored with shooting people in cars. Perhaps Vallejo and SC increased police patrols.

Perhaps he chose San Fran not because he wanted to confuse the police, per se, but because striking inside the city was a proper escalation of his crimes. Perhaps LB didn’t generate the media attention he craved. Perhaps he thought a dead cabbie would do more to generate media and public interest. After all, San Fran was his audience, and what better way to make your audience really notice you than to get their attention, and what better way to get their attention than to direct yours at them?

No way to really know, either way, imo. Certainly it’s a maddening case.

thanks..i have looked at some of the crime scene photos and well to my old eyes it was kinda hard to see intricate detail..plus old black and white photos did not help my old eyes..any-how yes I have always believed she died at the crime scene..I am so out of ideas on the Z I am tossing around any idea that is outside conventional thinking to may be steer my mind down a different path..

I think she knew the killer alright – everything seems to point to this being the case.

The following is what I’m leaning towards:

1. Someone kills CBJ, someone who knew her and resented her for some reason.

2. The same person writes the notes, stating that “she had to die”, perhaps from some sense of remorse.

3. A different person writes the confession letter. Some nut who takes credit for a crime he or she didn’t commit – it’s a fairly well known phenomenon.

4. At some point – could have been years before any of this happened – a female student writes the desktop poem. It has nothing to do with either CJB or Z.

5. Finally, Z takes credit, after a fashion, for CJB after having been invited to do so. He didn’t kill her, didn’t write the notes, didn’t write the confession, didn’t write the poem. He just nodded and said “yeah, I did that thing down there – and plenty more too” when he was offered a chance to boost his notoriety without having to lift a finger.

Just my opinion – and not one I hold very strongly either, for that matter.

Generally, I don’t think it’s likely that someone (later to become Z as we know him) traveled down to Riverside for the purpose of inserting himself into a murder case. If Z has anything to do with CJB he killed her – for my money. He knew her and killed her, wrote both notes and poems and whatnot – and then went on to become Z, so to speak.

I don’t fancy the above scenario but it’s more likely – in my opinion – than Z appearing in Riverside, posting letters and writing on desktops (the latter is completely absurd – the only thing which makes sense there is that Z was a student at RCC or at least that he was connected to the place one way or the other) without being the actual killer.

3. A different person writes the confession letter. Some nut who takes credit for a crime he or she didn’t commit – it’s a fairly well known phenomenon.

Why? Because it’s typed? Fair enough I suppose but then you have to consider that the envelope wasn’t and although disguised there are traits in the characters that are consistent with Z’s handwriting (both at the time and as Z) and there is the content of the letter itself. Similar misspellings that appear in Z’s letters years later. I think that’s enough for it to be considered as being from Z rather than not.

3. A different person writes the confession letter. Some nut who takes credit for a crime he or she didn’t commit – it’s a fairly well known phenomenon.

Why? Because it’s typed? Fair enough I suppose but then you have to consider that the envelope wasn’t and although disguised there are traits in the characters that are consistent with Z’s handwriting (both at the time and as Z) and there is the content of the letter itself. Similar misspellings that appear in Z’s letters years later. I think that’s enough for it to be considered as being from Z rather than not.

Spoken for truth

I think she knew the killer alright – everything seems to point to this being the case.

The following is what I’m leaning towards:

1. Someone kills CBJ, someone who knew her and resented her for some reason.

2. The same person writes the notes, stating that “she had to die”, perhaps from some sense of remorse.

3. A different person writes the confession letter. Some nut who takes credit for a crime he or she didn’t commit – it’s a fairly well known phenomenon.

4. At some point – could have been years before any of this happened – a female student writes the desktop poem. It has nothing to do with either CJB or Z.

5. Finally, Z takes credit, after a fashion, for CJB after having been invited to do so. He didn’t kill her, didn’t write the notes, didn’t write the confession, didn’t write the poem. He just nodded and said “yeah, I did that thing down there – and plenty more too” when he was offered a chance to boost his notoriety without having to lift a finger.

Just my opinion – and not one I hold very strongly either, for that matter.

Generally, I don’t think it’s likely that someone (later to become Z as we know him) traveled down to Riverside for the purpose of inserting himself into a murder case. If Z has anything to do with CJB he killed her – for my money. He knew her and killed her, wrote both notes and poems and whatnot – and then went on to become Z, so to speak.

I don’t fancy the above scenario but it’s more likely – in my opinion – than Z appearing in Riverside, posting letters and writing on desktops (the latter is completely absurd – the only thing which makes sense there is that Z was a student at RCC or at least that he was connected to the place one way or the other) without being the actual killer.

I tend to agree as I think CJB knew her killer.
I also firmly believe Darlene Ferrin knew her killer.
Whether either or both was Z remains to be seen. Hopefully.

ITA. Sorry to go ot, but have you read all the brilliant postings by A.K. Wilks and others re. Ted Kaczinski being Z? After reading them, I feel he is the most likely culprit to-date out of all those poi’s named so far. However, his atheism doesn’t fit with the religious references in some of Z’s writings, such as the "Co.nfession Letter" and the slaves for the "afterlife."

If Cheri and Darlene knew their killer or just one of them, then that eliminates Ted K. in my mind as I doubt very much that he could have known either one of these victims or been acquainted with them.

I have posted before that I think AK’s work is some the most compelling I have seen and before reading his assessment, I never considered TK as a viable suspect. It just seems that the incidentals in the CJB and DF cases make me believe they both knew their killer(s). With that said, I can find no compelling evidence to make me think the same person killed these two.

… a car with mismatched tires?

… a car with mismatched tires?

…not enough for me:-)

… a car with mismatched tires?

…not enough for me:-)

That was just my guess in answer to the title of the thread. … and a subtle hint to get it back on topic.

OK, got ya. Sorry!

3. A different person writes the confession letter. Some nut who takes credit for a crime he or she didn’t commit – it’s a fairly well known phenomenon.

Why? Because it’s typed? Fair enough I suppose but then you have to consider that the envelope wasn’t and although disguised there are traits in the characters that are consistent with Z’s handwriting (both at the time and as Z) and there is the content of the letter itself. Similar misspellings that appear in Z’s letters years later. I think that’s enough for it to be considered as being from Z rather than not.

Not because it’s typed – no. That might be said to count against it, if we’re going by known patterns here it’s atypical, but it’s not the main reason. I don’t think the content of that letter smacks of Z at all. There are some similarities in the choice of words, yes – the infamous "shall" and so forth. That’s all they are, though – similarities. I don’t consider them compelling or heavy enough. On the other hand, the tone of the letter – its attention to the victim, its "intimate" style, the writer’s focus – is very different from anything Z wrote later.

The envelopes? I don’t know. Goes back to whether one trusts Morrill or not, I guess. Same with the desktop. All I know is that I find it odd that he was so sure about this – when others clearly were not. I’m sure there are similarities – that’s usually the case. There are differences too, though. And the exemplars (not much writing at all on the envelopes, writing on a very different surface *, use of a completely different writing technique, etc.) strike me as less than perfect too.

As for why I think the killer wrote the notes (but not the confession), well – I think the notes make sense for a more or less disturbed, more or less remorseful killer to write. Could easily be wrong, of course.

* As far as I know Morrill never examined the desktop, only photos of it. That too should be taken into consideration, I think.