None of us are mind readers. Who knows what the thought processes were inside the poet’s mind–other than that he was a very disturbed man. "sick of living/unwilling to die" may have been the poet’s "analysis" of the poem’s subject.

…or woman.

None of us are mind readers. Who knows what the thought processes were inside the poet’s mind–other than that he was a very disturbed man. "sick of living/unwilling to die" may have been the poet’s "analysis" of the poem’s subject.

Could be, certainly. And we aren’t mind readers, that’s true.

This isn’t really a question of mind reading, though. You say the he, the poet, was a very disturbed man. That is true if the poet was Z. But the poem itself is not sick. If you read it as being about suicide it is precisely as expected, conforming to the standards, if you will, of the genre.

morf–I imagine we’ll all continue to go around and around with this, but the F.B.I. did not agree with Morrill.

I won’t post the images again as they can be found on this site–probably even in this thread. It was basically "inconclusive". I have read nowhere that the F.B.I. agreed the handwriting was that of Zodiac.

John Shimoda, another Zodiac handwriting expert, disagreed with Morrill. So if we add his opinion to the F.B.I.’s being inconclusive, I think it is fair for some of us to question the desktop poem’s authenticity.

I agree (obviously).

My stance on this is very simple: If there was no reason whatsoever to doubt Morrill, I would not do so. But what we’re looking at here is this:

1. The poem itself. I maintain that the most plausible interpretation is that the poem is about suicide, not murder. This is not a question of random opinion either. Literary experts agree with me. It’s as objective a claim as one can expect when dealing with a poem.

2. The exemplar. The poem is scratched on a desktop. Completely different from any other known Z exemplar.

3. It seems that other experts did not agree with Morrill’s conclusion.

The above is enough for me to remain doubtful. And that is what I am. Not convinced Z did not write the poem – but doubtful.

One last thing: Morrill’s verdict on the other Riverside documents. If you look at the FBI files, there’s a clear tendency to be noted: If the document in question contains very little writing, the verdict is very often, simply, "inconclusive". Not enough data to analyze in a meaningful way. There are documents commented on which contain more writing than the Riverside ones, with the FBI stating – for instance – that there are certain similarities but also discrepancies, etc. Conclusion is still "inconclusive" based on the sample size. Morrill seems to have been far less reluctant to make a definite call than the FBI experts, perhaps because he was convinced he could "smell" Z no matter how small the sample size was.

And perhaps he was right – by all means. But it doesn’t seem like a scientifically sound approach to the thing. There has to be standards one simply adheres to, regardless of one’s personal conviction. If the sample size is too small – well, that is that. I find it very odd that Morrill thought it beyond doubt that Z wrote the Bates notes and the Confession envelopes. * The latter is borderline bizarre, actually. The sample size is tiny and the writer uses capital letters. Very odd, in my opinion.

* Or more precisely, I don’t find it odd that he thought so – but that he seemingly formally and officially concluded this was so.

The FBI memos often read, "the writer of the z letters should not be ruled out as the writer of the Bates letters" or similar language. Or, "there is noted similarity" or "the Bates letters are not written as freely as the Z letters".

So, what is the overall impression of the Bates letters from the FBI?

It is impossible to defend against a negative argument. No matter how much proof is presented, it can always be countered with: "Yes, but…"
Now for my own negative argument. I find the proposition that the desktop poem was suicidal in nature ludicrous. Clearly, the poet is referring to another person, not him/herself. As far as the poem’s sex goes, suicidal females generally prefer ODing, not stabbing themselves to death.
Finally, the "My expert is better than your expert" argument holds little water. You can always find an expert willing to disagree with another expert. Fact is, Morrill was THE expert, and arguments against his position have to be judged accordingly.

I find the proposition that the desktop poem was suicidal in nature ludicrous. Clearly, the poet is referring to another person, not him/herself. As far as the poem’s sex goes, suicidal females generally prefer ODing, not stabbing themselves to death.

If we look at it as a poem (and, well, that is what it IS), the point of view(s) cannot necessarily be taken literally. The author can easily be "she", thus referring to herself in the third person. That’s hardly uncommon.

As for the other thing, which I believe you have brought up before, the poem doesn’t say anything about stabbing.

Stabbing oneself to death is an extremely rare suicide method regardless of gender, I would imagine. Slitting one’s wrists, on the other hand, is fairly common – among female suicides too. It’s also a favored method among those who do not really want to die, i.e. those in the "cry for help" category.

It is impossible to defend against a negative argument. No matter how much proof is presented, it can always be countered with: "Yes, but…"
Now for my own negative argument. I find the proposition that the desktop poem was suicidal in nature ludicrous. Clearly, the poet is referring to another person, not him/herself. As far as the poem’s sex goes, suicidal females generally prefer ODing, not stabbing themselves to death.
Finally, the "My expert is better than your expert" argument holds little water. You can always find an expert willing to disagree with another expert. Fact is, Morrill was THE expert, and arguments against his position have to be judged accordingly.

Just friendly debates here Dag, but the desk top poem is not proof. It was one man’s observation. Shimoda too was a Zodiac expert.

It goes both ways, no matter what any opposing side states, the other can say "yes, but".

In psychology there are two "errors in reasoning" which I think are very apparent when it comes to our debates here:

1) "Belief Perseverance": Even when we are presented with evidence that refutes our beliefs, we find it difficult to abandon those beliefs.

2) "Confirmation Bias": When we already believe something is true, we tend to look for evidence that proves our beliefs, and we tend not to notice evidence that disproves those beliefs.

And the other dimension is rh being an intended victim.

I agree, Tahoe, that ANYONE–male, female or hermaphrodite–could have written the desktop poem. My opinions re the poem’s author are just that: opinions. But, I’m still right.

I think the thing that throws many people off with this poem is the notion that the poem: either relates to the Bates murder, or it was unrelated and written by a girl.

My guess is that the poem’s subject matter is unrelated to the Bates murder but still written by the perp. It was most likely written and/or discovered the pre-summer before the murder. The janitors probably found it during the summer of ’66 cleanup and thought it was odd, but nothing worth reporting. Once the murder happened, and all the attention turned to the library, the janitor probably remembered finding the poem and turned it over at that point.

Still, the poem could easily have been written by the perp, with the subject matter having nothing to do with the Bates murder.

The janitors probably found it during the summer of ’66 cleanup and thought it was odd, but nothing worth reporting. Once the murder happened, and all the attention turned to the library, the janitor probably remembered finding the poem and turned it over at that point.

That sounds very plausible to me. Never thought about it quite like that – but it makes sense. And it works regardless of what one’s take on the poem as such happens to be, for that matter.

The janitors probably found it during the summer of ’66 cleanup and thought it was odd, but nothing worth reporting. Once the murder happened, and all the attention turned to the library, the janitor probably remembered finding the poem and turned it over at that point.

That sounds very plausible to me. Never thought about it quite like that – but it makes sense. And it works regardless of what one’s take on the poem as such happens to be, for that matter.

I don’t think it was first found until December, 1966

I just get lost in the long river of differing

opionions regarding the rh poem. They all have

value. I cannot seem to commit to just one.

A Z letter not a Z letter.

Anybody could have written it. Things are always written here, there, and everywhere. What? We just got that lucky and had a Z letter/poem found at such a convenient time? I would bet there were numerous writings written on many desks.The rh one just happened to sound a bit evil/unpleasant. Z was pretty lucky it was even found, let alone, proved by some professionals, to be his handwriting.A needle in a haystack. I am not sure what to make of that.

Written by a male?-written by a female?

It looks like a guy’s handwriting to me. And it also could sounds if it were written with evil intentions.

And or But….

It does not look like female handwriting to me and it also has a slight tone as if written by a female.Yes, girls did write on their desks, it is not just a guy thing. A female cutting herself-yes I see that possibility. Speaking in the third person, I can see that too. Maybe just jotting down thoughts-no intent to actually kill herself.

Signing off with rh.

There are so many opionions on this. Personally, I think quite a few of the ideas people have (all could make sense) and sound plausible.

So after reading peoples thoughts on the rh poem and having reread the poem over and over and comparing the writing-I am just left undecided on this one.

I have two words, OCCAM’s RAZOR,( the simplest answer is likely the right one.)

Forget Sherwood Morrill for a second, let’s look at ALL OF THE BATES CLUES for a second from the beginning.

*Bates is killed after her attacker disables her car (Kathleen Johns is attacked by a man, maybe Z, maybe not, who disables her car)

*After Bates is killed, the confession letter is mailed. In it, the writer asks that the letter be published(just like Zodiac). He misspells Twitch/Twich(just like Zodiac). He uses the word, SHALL(just like Zodiac). Although never verified by police, he wrote "I did make that call to you" (just like Zodiac did on multiple occasions after his attacks)

*More letters mailed On the 6 month anniversary of the Bates murder(Just like Zodiac mailed a letter on the anniversary of LHR murders). These letters include a Z like symbol(Zodiac starts with a Z) Postage rates aside, these letters included multiple stamps on them(just like Zodiac’s letters)

*Throw in one extra little nugget, in nearby San Bernardino, a young tormented student (Zode)goes around calling himself ZODIAC in 1963-1965, and using phrases like, "this is zodiac speaking" (just like zodiac did). It’s entirely possible that Zodiac knew Zode or attended high school with him, and stole his persona to use as his own. If Zode lived in central CA, or another state altogether, it might not mean that much, but the fact he lived next to Riverside, makes his background and use of the Zodiac persona more interesting.

I think the info above shows, and proves habits and patterns from a disturbed individual in Riverside. Those habits and patterns closely match Zodiac’s pattern and habits. Now throw in Sherwood Morrill’s expert oinion(not to mention Trav’s excellent side by side comparisons )

Now add to that Zodiac owning up to his "Riverside Activity" (there are only two possibilities here, Zodiac was lying or he was telling the truth, NO IN BETWEENS)

Throw it all into a blender, and what do we come out with?

Two separate disturbed individuals one in Riverside in 66-67 and one in Vallejo 1968-74, both displaying the same habits, words, phrases, practices, etc

OR

One individual who has moved on from Riverside in 66/67 to Vallejo 1968-74, and who has continued or escalated the same pattern of activity he was doing in Riverside?

What is the most likely scenario? What does Occam’s Razor tell us? It’s simple, the simplest and most obvious answer is likely the right answer!