From another thread:

For what it’s worth, I finally located the relevant thread on TV’s (archived) board. A poster (Peter H) sent the poem to some literary people and asked them to comment on it. They were not told anything of the context, other than the approximate time (around 1966-67) and the "medium" (that it was written on a desktop). They didn’t know anything in particular about the Z case. This is what they had to say.

(I omit what they had to say about the initials, as they simply concluded that "rh" was a signature, the initials of the person who wrote it. I don’t know why they were asked about this, specifically, but there you go – probably some of the popular Z theories at the time had "rh" meaning something other than the author’s name).

X:

This is a fairly typical example of adolescent angst. There’s not enough compassion indicative of the subject to suggest that it’s written about
anyone else. To be quite cold, it’s a lousy poem–only of interest to the author and (hopefully) their parents, teachers, etc.

As I noted before, there’s no indication that the author is a sophisticated enough poet to be writing about anything other than her own self-pity. It’s interesting that the author looks at herself in the third person, but I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that she had attempted or planned to attempt suicide. Contrary to the opinion of high school guidance counselors everywhere, nearly every teenage girl since Emily Dickinson has written this poem in one form or another. Teenage years are agonizingly alienating, and bad poetry is often a good outlet for things the author would never really enact. On the other hand, the cry for help is somewhat legitimate–just as it is in a typical suicide attempt. (The slashed wrists method rarely works quickly, giving the victim plenty of time to be found and brought to medical attention. I’ve always been willing to bet that, on some level, we all know this.

Q: What about the poem as poetry? Quality? Originality? Impact? Sources, style, influences?

A: The author is a novice poet. The structure of the poem would seem to indicate that they are familiar with poetry (possibly a student) but they are not well versed, so to speak. It is more of a message imitating poetry. The poem lacks originality in that it does not make a sensory connection with the reader. The red dress (I won’t get into Freud here though it would be easy) and the blood are the only images. The speaker of the poem seems to be void of emotion as the use of words such as “anyway” and “some one ’ll” indicate. The speaker is either self loathing or pathological or both.
But hey, that’s just my opinion and I read too many mysteries anyway.

Right, that’s it.

Lastly, I stress – of course – that I by no means think the verdict of literary experts is definite given the actual subject matter. There is a context to this which is clearly wider than the poem regarded as a literary product – and these people aren’t qualified to say anything about THAT.

morf13 wrote:

I had read that assessment before. While the poetry expert makes sense in many ways, others will not take this poem to mean a suicide. Most girls don’t write on desks, I think that’s more of a male student’s activity. Also, the HaHa at the end sounds like a juvenile male, not a female. I found one female with the RH initials in the 66 RCC yearbook, and I wrote to her asking if she could have written that, but never got a response.

Not sure I’m following you here, morf – is there a "haha" at the end?

Anyway, I agree that statistically it’s more likely for male students to write on desks. But considering the nature of what was written I don’t think this is significant. As for the interpretation – anything is possible. I still think it’s about suicide, though – but your guess is as good as mine.

Will add some further points/ideas later.

It has always reminded me of a girl at least contemplating suicide.

It was written as if no one cared, not even the writer. Depressed. Blood on a red dress…oh well, it was red anyway…who cares…not me…not anyone.

"Sick of living"

It has always reminded me of a girl at least contemplating suicide.

It was written as if no one cared, not even the writer. Depressed. Blood on a red dress…oh well, it was red anyway…who cares…not me…not anyone.

"Sick of living"

I agree 100%.

But, setting aside (well, mostly) what I think about the poem, personally – let me consider some possibilities (or mention some points, ask some questions and engage in some further speculation…)

I don’t think anything in the poem should be taken literally. But if we do (and some have), some things seem clear enough. “She” can’t be Bates in anything but a fantasy sense. Bates didn’t wear a (new) red dress when she was attacked. Nor did she survive the attack. In fact, the “she won’t die this time” part is hard to link to Bates on any level. She wasn’t the victim of an unsuccessful attack prior to the one which killed her. And as a form of fantasy (her killer fantasizing about killing her prior to actually doing it), I have to say the choice of words makes little sense. In the latter interpretation the author/killer seems to fantasize about attacking her unsuccessfully, as a prelude to a successful attack. It’s getting awfully complicated, let’s put it like that.

Could the poem be a killer’s confession/fantasy if we replace Bates with another victim? Yes, that’s possible. The fantasy part is just as complicated here, though: The killer still fantasizes about an unsuccessful attack. I personally would just throw this possibility out – others may disagree. What about the confession possibility, then? It would seem to rest on whether the circumstances actually fit a known crime. The Taft attack has been mentioned as a possibility. Did the victim wear a new red dress? The obvious problem with Taft is that he was caught. If he wrote the poem, then the Z connection goes right out the window – unless Taft was Z (and he couldn’t have been).

Let’s assume that Z was the author of this poem. What was his intention? I maintain that the poem does not reference the events surrounding Bates’ death directly. It can be interpreted in all sorts of ways – but it is NOT a “confession” from the person who killed her. I further maintain that it is very difficult to plausibly interpret it as a fantasy about Bates, in any shape or form, either. So, to me at least, it would seem that Z wrote a poem which has no bearing on the Bates case whatsoever, and that he did so on a desk in the RCC library. A poem which reads like a suicide fantasy (considered as such, by the way, the poem isn’t morbid or sick or anything of the sort; it’s perfectly normal in the context of the “genre”). Did he write this poem innocently? As a depressed young (?) man who wrote a poem about suicide from a female’s perspective? Or less innocently, as a homicidal man (of unknown age) who wrote a murder fantasy (one which doesn’t read like a murder fantasy, but nevermind that) about a future victim? What was Z’s connection to the place where the poem was discovered? And did he intend for this poem to be discovered?

Lastly, the handwriting. I can’t argue with Morrill. I don’t know precisely how he justified his conclusion (has anyone ever seen a report with details of his examination?) and even if I did, I’m not qualified to confirm or dismiss his findings. The poem was written on a varnished wooden surface, though – we do know that. It was actually “carved” as much as it was printed. That would make for an unusual exemplar. To my knowledge Morrill never examined the desktop, only a photo of it.

The more and more I read this poem, I too am of the belief it is about an attempted suicide. To me it just doesn’t fit well into a murder gone wrong type scenario.

Well, it’s not a very good poem, IMO. Agree with the theory that it’s a (story about a) girl contemplating suicide, or at least wondering what it would be like if she tried. Cutting her wrists, watching blood pool on her red dress, but being found in time. Maybe the next time, she’ll be successful in her attempt.

I think someone mentioned the Occam’s Razor approach somewhere in this thread, and it’s interesting when you apply it here, than you would have to conclude that Z, or at the very least, the person writing the letters calling himself the zodiac, is the same person who wrote that poem.

There are enough similarities in all the writing, Bates’ envelopes included, to conclude that either it is the same writer or someone is trying to imitate another writer. The more convoluted theory is that Z tried to copy the writing on that desktop, and the writing on the Bates’ envelopes. The simple solution is that it’s all the same person. And given that Z himself takes credit for Bates, and that that corny, melodramatic style, the linguistics, and the grim theme of girls dying in a violent way, are common to both the poem and The Confession letter, it becomes very hard to doubt that there is one writer responsible for poem, Bates’ letters and Z’s correspondence.

When you look at it this way, Cheri Jo and Riverside college become the key to solving this. Even better, Cheri’s murder is actually solvable. On the downside, it’s still not safe to assume the letter writer killed Bates, or were Z’s victims for that matter, even if you apply Occam’s Razor. However, if we can find the letter writer, the killer wouldnt be hard to find.

Even if you disagree that they’re not all the same writer, doesn’t it appear that Cheri Jo Bates is the key?

I think someone mentioned Occam’s Razor somewhere in this thread, and it’s interesting if you take that approach than you would have to conclude the Z, or at the very least, the person writing the letters calling himself the zodiac, is the same person who wrote that poem.

There are enough similarities in all the writing, Bates’ s envelopes included, to conclude that either it is the same writer or someone is trying to imitate another writer. The more convoluted theory is that Z tried to copy the writing on that desktop, and the writing on the Bates’ envelopes. The simple solution is that it’s all the same person. And given that Z himself takes credit for Bates, and that that corny, melodramatic style, the mispellings, the linguistics, and the grim theme of girls dying in a violent way, are common to both the poem and The Confession letter, it becomes very hard to doubt that there is one writer responsible for poem, Bates’ letters and Z’s correspondence.

When you look at it this way, Cheri Jo and Riverside college become the key to solving this. Even better, Cheri’s murder is actually solvable. On the downside, it’s still not safe to assume the letter writer killed Bates, or were Z’s victims for that matter, even if you apply Occam’s Razor. However, if we can find the letter writer, the killer wouldnt be hard to find.

Even if you disagree that they’re not all the same writer, doesn’t it appear that Cheri Jo Bates is the key?

Yup.

We’ve been around the houses with this poem, so to speak, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. It’s good to test things and Z’s stuff needs that adnauseum IMO due to the volume and variety.

When I first started to look at the poem a few years ago I spotted similarities that hadn’t been previously expanded on. I can honestly say that since then I’ve had my doubts too about it’s authenticity. That was mostly off the back of looking at so many ‘similar’ handwriting styles and after a while you get snow blind. A few years down the line I’m spotting things in the poem handwriting that are cropping up throughout Z’s other letters so for me I have little room left to doubt that he produced it.

As to the meaning of the content, well, that’s always going to be open to interpretation. I would however suggest as an experiment, drop the title and see how it reads.

I know, and agree, it’s not safe to assume that even if all the communications were written by the same person it doesn’t mean that person killed Cheri Jo. I think that’s because of the way Z played his game. He always left just enough doubt to be a distraction. It’s certainly kept us busy for years and most likely will for many more. If you concede though that the communication were by the same author then that author was a killer. That, for me, makes it more, rather than less, likely that he did kill Cheri Jo.

It’s not a given though unfortunately and again, that’s down to the nature of Z’s game (or approach). Was she the first, was she not? Was she the first he wrote about, was she not? She wasn’t the last, that we do know. What is clear is that Z had two parallel campaigns. Killing and writing and it worked rather well, possibly even better than he could have envisaged. This is typified in the LA times ‘admission’ – "There are a hell of a lot more down there" "activities". More what? murders? writing examples? both? Either or and what does ‘activities’ mean exactly?

That’s two possible attempts to deflect importance away from that crime. At the time and in response to the connection being published. He had no problem allowing the other murders to stand on their own merit. Cheri Jo’s however seems to require a downplaying approach in his communications and in both instances he contradicts himself and the context.

(She was not the first she will not be the last / Bates had to die there will be more) – there are more/there will be more. One claims she wasn’t the first and one suggests she was.

(They are only finding the easy ones / there are a hell of a lot more) – only one was found and after 5 years we have the re-insistence of ‘more’ rather than acknowledge ‘one’. Something he later had no problem doing, even before he was accused or suspected.

There could well be more down there but I suspect they could be post Cheri-jo. So he was kinda telling the truth with the possible exception of "She was not the first". Either way, to me at least, it seems like he doesn’t want focus on her murder and possibly Riverside or …. that desk?

Interesting, he refrences it, but attempts to deflect it. I am beginning to think maybe he is not as clever or crafty as I give him credit for. If the desktop poem is not some sort of red herring, than it’s a big boo boo by Z. He is giving LE a lot to work with, with that poem. On the other hand, it still didnt get them very far, and they seem adamant that Bates’ killer wasn’t Z.

Interesting, he refrences it, but attempts to deflect it. I am beginning to think maybe he is not as clever or crafty as I give him credit for. If the desktop poem is not some sort of red herring, than it’s a big boo boo by Z. He is giving LE a lot to work with, with that poem. On the other hand, it still didnt get them very far, and they seem adamant that Bates’ killer wasn’t Z.

I don’t think the desktop was a red herring by Z or by the Bates letter writer. He would have no way to know it would ever be connected to the Bates case, so I think it’s a slip up on his part, maybe he really used his real initials, but then again, he may have been so warped, he had some imaginary persona for himself and a fake name he used, but I dont think he planted the desk as a red herring. As for me, I have researched so many people from Riverside with initials RH, and I have yet to find one that I can solidly connect to the city of Vallejo. The RH list includes Riverside high school & college students, etc.

I was on the fence for a while, but a couple years ago, when i looked closely at Traveller1st’s fine writing comparison of Z to the Bates desktop, and based on the respect I had for Sherwood Morril’s writing exam & link to Z, I now have very little doubt that Z wrote that desktop poem. If only the RH initials lead to a solid suspect. Z also got lucky, RCC did not put out a yearbook in 1967, which is the year Cheri would have appeared as a freshman in the yearbook there. If Z was a fellow Student that year there, we could look thru the book and spot anybody with RH initials. As far as 1966 yearbook,and earlier, no solid RH suspects to speak of.

A little numerology aside.

rh

r is the 18th letter of the alphabet
h is the 8th

18+8=26

26th letter is Z

Ta Dah!

I found a poem published or written in September, 1966 entitled, RED DRESS-
"Author: giuseppe ungaretti" "title: red dress"

The poem doesn’t read much like the desktop poem, but it does mention a red dress, and it was published so close before the desk was found. I could imagine some young, whacked out mentally ill creep, sitting in an RCC poetry class or english lit class, and being forced to read this poem, and spinning off his own morbid poem based on it. Just an idea, just spit balling

If Z wrote the poem and he didn’t intend for anyone to find it (which seems reasonable, since it was a coincidence it was found), it seems odd to me that he would affirm Bates (and thus the poem). If he really wrote that poem it links him to the RCC library – it’s a direct link, pretty much the biggest clue in the case. Doesn’t quite make sense to me. But then, Z was nuts – who knows what he thought.

If Z wrote the poem and he didn’t intend for anyone to find it (which seems reasonable, since it was a coincidence it was found), it seems odd to me that he would affirm Bates (and thus the poem). If he really wrote that poem it links him to the RCC library – it’s a direct link, pretty much the biggest clue in the case. Doesn’t quite make sense to me. But then, Z was nuts – who knows what he thought.

Absolutely right, and he only reluctantly copped to the Bates case, likely because he didn’t want investigators to know he lived in Riverside in 66-67, that’s a major clue if so, and could make it much easier for police to weed thru suspects.

In addition, people have asked, "we’ll if Z killed Bates, why not write about it on the car door with his victim count?" My answer would be, because it’s possible he didn’t kill her only sent letters. The other option is that he didn’t want police to have the Riverside clue to work with

Do those of you who think Zodiac wrote the poem on the desk think he was disguising his handwriting when he wrote it?