RPD, which was the agency responsible for investigating the desktop poem, totally opted for Bennett as Cheri Bates’ killer. They wanted no part of any poem signed, RH. Apologies to Morf, but Cheri’s killer was initialed RH, not RS.

Just so you know, you are not the first person to suggest that the killer’s initials were "RH." That idea has been floating around for, 1 or 2, lets say 50 years. No good suspect with RH initials has ever been put forth.

Bill Bennett was cleared by DNA testing in 1999. Pretty safe to say he didn’t do it.

I like my suspect with the initials RH but can’t place him at Riverside at the time but can’t say he wasn’t in that area at the time. He was a wing walker for Lockheed in southern California and may have been around 66… Also very likely was gay and never had any ties to woman and lived with a known homosexual for years. I bring that up because of the gay issues in other post lately.

I think I get the point though no RH good suspect can be placed at Riverside in 66 but its also hard to prove either way that some was there or not.. Also like Morf mentioned there can be a good suspect in a surrounding area that we haven’t looked for.

Just following up on a point which has been made both in this and other threads recently:

Let’s assume that Z did write the desktop poem. Now, let’s leave all speculation about the precise nature of the poem aside and just agree on the following: It’s a stretch to assume that Z traveled to Riverside simply in order to write that poem. It’s far more likely that he was connected to RCC in some way – either as a student or in some professional capacity or other. It’s not impossible that there is another "Riverside connection", but I maintain that the above is the most likely connection: Z wrote the poem as someone who had some sort of legitimate business at the library.

Alright. One final point: Given the "medium" Z chose for his poem, I would say that it is highly unlikely that he intended for this particular "communication" to be found. Let’s just keep it at that level – there are other reasons, pertaining to the nature of the poem itself, which indicate the same thing, but never mind these reasons for now. It was written on the backside/underside/flip side (call it what you will) of a desk – that is sufficient reason for us to believe that he did not intend for the poem to discovered and attributed to him.

The last part being key here. In fact, based on the reasoning so far, we can safely (relatively) say that Z did not WANT the poem to be discovered. And it’s easy to understand why he would not want that: The poem connects him to the library. There’s even the possibility that it’s signed with his own, true initials. If Z did write this poem, it is the biggest clue in the case, bar none.

So, at last, the point: If all of the above is more or less true, WHY did Z take credit for Bates (and thus the poem) when the Riverside connection was made public? Granted, he did not do so immediately. As morf pointed out the other day in another thread, Avery first mentions the connection in November ’70 – and Z does not acknowledge it until March ’71. Which is a good point. But Z does acknowledge it. He keeps on writing as Z even after the connection has been made. Isn’t this incredibly foolhardy IF he knows damn well that the poem connects him tangibly and undeniably to RCC and/or the library?

What’s his reasoning? Avery makes the connection public in November – by March he, Zodiac, is still at large, so clearly the cops are unable to catch him (in spite of him leaving them this huge clue to his identity?) I have to say I have a hard time buying that. He would have been borderline stupid to think that – four months isn’t that long. Four years? Alright – that makes sense. But not four months.

What does this indicate, then? That there is no Riverside connection? Or that the Riverside connection isn’t what we think it is (see above)? Or that Z was indeed stupid and/or foolhardy (although, so far, proven right – we have to admit!)…or something else?

tl/dr: Presupposing that Z did indeed write the desktop poem, in all likelihood as someone with a connection to RCC/the library, WHY did he take credit for Bates?

We must remember, he didn’t take credit for Bates.

I see your point though. If he was involved, I don’t think he would associate himself later knowing there were such mistakes made. And why write on the desk at all? If you don’t want it seen/known, you don’t write it on a desk and you certainly wouldn’t put you initials on it.

Presupposing that Z did indeed write the desktop poem, in all likelihood as someone with a connection to RCC/the library, WHY did he take credit for Bates?

Many good points Norse. Z pretty much took credit for Bates in the line "I do have to give them credit for stumbling across my riverside activity, but they are only finding the easy ones, there are a hell of a lot more down there."

He basically had two choices:

A) deny the connection and look weak by going on the defensive.

B) since LE never came knocking on his door in 4 months, he could admit the connection but downplay it by saying there are "many more." Thus using misdirection.

I think it makes sense why he chose B.

I believe the "poem" was written after RCC’s 1966 summer break. This is the time when janitors are their most thorough, and it is likely, had the poem been written before then, that the desk would have been removed/repaired. Certainly, the "poem" would have been remembered and reported to LE shortly after Cheri’s death.
IMO, the "poem" represented the author’s unacceptable homicidal thoughts surfacing, and disguised, perhaps even to him, in an "artistic" format. The "rh" is a cautious attempt to claim credit for this artistic masterpiece, the contents of which the author realizes are unacceptable to others.
Were the poem intended to cast suspicion on another, it would not have been concealed on the underside of a desk. What happened, I believe, is that between the poem being written and Cheri’s murder, the desk was either deliberately or accidentally moved. The author, unable to locate the poem, had no option but to keep mum. His tardy acknowledgment of the poem took place while all kinds of Zodiac crap was flying in all directions. What better time to take credit, and have the authenticity questioned?

I started writing this about 13 hrs ago but then had to go do stuff. I’m not sure how much sense it makes but it seemed good at the time lol. I was attempting to respond to your post Norse and got through the ‘timings/timescale aspect of it. There were other points that I wanted to respond to but I’ll have to wait for those thoughts to cycle back round again.

The synopsis is – his timings and responses might not have a logical inference or reasoned purpose. He might simply not have given a damn.

"but the task of filling up the blanks I rather leave up to you"

Seems rather appropriate. He seemed to do that a lot in retrospect.

So …. we take it that he wrote on the desk. He’s annoyingly vague in the ’71 letter. He refers to "activities" which could be either/or in reference to the murder and the desk. Irrelevant for now though because we have a written admission to the connection’s validity. I think we have to keep the two (the desk and the murder) connected for the purpose of thinking through this.

Timescales. Ok, as you say, relatively short timescale so maybe we assume that he’s not worried about the desk. He’s also not worried about the murder. Why? or rather why not? Well firstly we just don’t know. We don’t know why he isn’t and we don’t know if he isn’t. The ’71 letter, in his mind, could have been a calculated risk. He may have found himself at the mercy of not knowing. The ’71 letter may have been to test the waters and see what, if anything, was happening regarding the murder and the desk. A hypothesis of course but one worth including as it pertains to reasons for the timescale. It also includes misdirection or muddying. "There are a hell of a lot more", "Only finding the easy ones". Another layer to factor in. Does that reinforce concern? It’s hard to say because it’s not sufficient to ensure any detraction of focus away from the Bates crime and the desk. It may however just be what it is, a crude attempt.

The Stine murder responses also might be relevant here. The timescale there is non existent and there is also muddying as well with the "cops pulled a goof". The point is that no-one knew this was a Zodiac crime until he admitted and proved it and he did that immediately. He knew he’d been seen and yet he wasn’t concerned at all because if he had been he would have waited and possibly not ever confirmed it. He then writes again concerning the cops spotting him. Expanding and embellishing the facts to sow further confusion. Or so it would seem but it actually appears to be more for the purpose of just messing with them. Rubbing their noses in it.

So in that respect the timing and content of his response to the Riverside connection might not indicate anything or at least anything logical.

My thoughts in concerning with the latest discussion in this thread:

I think Zodiac, as a basic personality trait, suffered from comprehensive hubris.

And through the years it even got worse IMO, progressively he had committed many murders, written many letter, several codes, made several phone calls, sent bloody piceses of victims shirt, met police and witnesses and STILL never got caught.

He said it himself:

"Like I have allways said, I am crack proof"
&
"I am now in control of all things" (April 24, 1978)
&
"I am the ZODIAC and I am in control of all things …..(letter content removed)….Do you know me? I am the ZODIAC and I am in control." (July 19,1978, I added the two 1978 letters because I belive they are both genuin Zodiac letters, I know many disagree, I respect that of course)

And who knows maybe he HAD already committed several murders previous to the CJB murder in 1966, and gotten away with it?
He DID write in his Nov 29 1966 "Confession" letter:

"SHE IS NOT THE FIRST AND SHE WILL NOT BE THE LAST"

Glad to see the Bates stuff get so much attention, it’s one of my favorite ‘mysteries’ within the Z mystery.

Did Z kill Cheri, or didn’t he? Did he write the letters and desktop, or only one or the other? Such a great bunch of questions with not many answers.

RE: The desktop, there’s 3 types of people-

1)Those that think Sherwood was right, and Z authored the desktop(and Bates letters)

2)Those that think Sherwood was wrong

3)Those that don’t know what to think.

I fall into number 1, I think Sherwood was spot on and Z was the Author of the Desk & letters, although I am on the fence as to whether Z killed Bates or not.

Based on what Sherwood thought, and what Trav seems to have presented in his side by side comparisons of the desk against Z letters, I think Z wrote the letters & desk, and furthermore, if we look at the confession letter, it screams of Zodiac…BEFORE Zodiac was Zodiac.

*He wants the letter published

*He uses the word ‘SHALL’

*He misspelled the word twitch(twich) the way Z later would

*He mentions that he "DID make that call to police", something that Z later did.

If we look at clues in the confession letter, along with the writing on the desk, double stamped postage on envelopes, signing a small Z to the Bates letters, etc…to me, it’s all overwhelmingly in Favor of it being Z.

I agree,I find it hard to believe that Z never lived in Riverside and only went down there to kill Bates and author the letters & desk. I think it’s highly likely that Z had a connection to Riverside and to RCC. Was he a teacher, student,janitor, etc? I don’t know, but I doubt that he was a stranger that wandered into the library and made the desk poem.

If only we could find a suspect that was in that RCC library, wrote morbid poems, and looked just like the Z sketch before moving to the SF Bay area

It seems like a lot of people get hung up on whether Z killed Bates, but whether he did or not does not matter, what is key is ‘IF’ he lived in Riverside in 66-67, and if he did, we can greatly shrink the suspect pool.

RE: the boasts of "she was not the first" and "there are a hell of a lot more down there"….who knows whether these are true statements by the Author(s). If Z killed Domingos & Edwards in 1963, then he likely was older than college aged, and could very well be an older male. If Bates was his first Victim, or inspired him to go on and become Z, then we are likely looking at a younger person. I think it’s likely Z was in his early to mid 20’s in 1966-1967. The wild card in all this is that while most college students are 18-22, there’s the occasional older adult going to college, or the Ross Sullivan’s that are on the ‘Van Wilder’ college plan, and are sort of adrift at college and never seem to move on.

Anyhow, sorry for the ramblings, glad to see this thread active, there are clues yet to find here I suspect

Those are Z’s at the bottom of the Bates letters?

Those are Z’s at the bottom of the Bates letters?

I guess that too depends on who you ask. They look like fancy looking Z’s to me

I don’t have "The Confession" in front of me, but, as I remember, its author rants about Bates having snubbed him "in years past," or something very like that. If we take the author at his word, since Cheri was only eighteen when she was murdered, that would mean sometime during her high school years. This would dramatically reduce the number of "rh" possibilities.
I adhere to the principle of Occam’s Razor: the simplest explanation is usually the right one. Certainly, the simplest explanation is the one that should be researched first. And it seems to me that investigating male RHs who attended Ramona High during Cheri’s time there–1963 to 1966–given today’s technology, would be sweat free. Two examples: the whereabouts of RHs between 1963 and, say, 1970; and comparisons of prints between the RHs and those found on Stine’s cab.
Easy, huh? Then, why isn’t it done?

I adhere to the principle of Occam’s Razor: the simplest explanation is usually the right one.

Yeah, It was Ross.

@DM…So you believe this man would have killed Cheri; acknowledging she had brushed him off in that past, written about it on a desk and used his actual initials?

Wouldn’t he be one of the first people to be looked at? Surely Cheri had friends she would have talked to about the guy; sort of like Betty Lou did with her friends in regards to Ricky Burton.

A watch, a print….he might as well have walked up and turned himself in.

It wouldn’t surprise me at all if she knew him; I think she did. I have a hard time believing someone capable of doing that lived such a squeaky clean life since then. One can hope someday a print or DNA will provide some answers. Maybe they should find a way to print everyone at the time of their death.

I find the missing hour and a half, between the closing of the library at 9:00pm and the screams heard at 10:30pm to be interesting. An hour and a half is a long time. This fact leads me to suspect CJ knew her killer(s). It seems to me that if the killing was random, it
would have occurred in a much shorter period of time.
Jilted, revengeful admirer seems much more logical in that respect.