In short, the Bates letters and desktop demonstrate much of what we know Zodiac did, and match closely, and for the Bates writing to just happen to be close enough to fool Morrill, I don’t buy it. Zodiac’s pattern of wanting attention, mailing letters to cops and newspapers, asking to be published, taunting them…..that simply does NOT happen very often in murder cases, yet the person in Riverside did it and Zodiac did it, and they both luckily, against all odds, have almost the same writing good enough to fool Morrill?? Nah, I don’t think so

We just think differently here.

I think the letters show things Zodiac DIDN’T do. The Confession letter? Talking about a warm breast? Warning girls to stay off the street? Using her name?

Shall is a popular word–it’s certainly not exclusive to the Zodiac killer and lots of people spell twitch wrong. It’s interesting, but doesn’t prove anything, ya know?

Again, with Bates had to die. He uses her name, writes to Dad and the police in handwriting un-Zodiac like. (the letters)

I think if we are going to say Morrill (with his handwriting judgement) should be considered, then we should offer the same and more to LE who actually investigated the case–above and beyond handwriting.

It’s also worth pointing out that all these things which are Z like or Z-ish in some ways (I’m not denying this, obviously) pertain to one and the same murder: The communications do so directly and the desktop was taken notice of because of the Bates case (which was big news on campus at the time, of course).

If you could present three different cases, all of which featuring Z like traits, it would be much harder to doubt the connection. It’s just one murder, however. And I don’t find it beyond the realm of possibility that the one murderer sent some letters – which aren’t sufficiently Z like in themselves to convince me our man was behind them – after the murder. Desktop? Coincidence, has no bearing at all. Could have been written a decade prior to these events.

None of the above is possible to maintain IF one buys Morrill’s verdict, however – which is why, for me, it all comes down to whether one does just that.

I love the to and fro on this desk. It really is a mini case all in itself. It’s puzzle as well which is rather fitting. Zodiac is nice and vague in his ’71 letter and it’s been said before, by T if I remember correctly, that he could have been referring to anything when he said ‘activity’. He does however say ‘stumbling across’ and whilst he’s probably referring to anything they choose to attribute to him the choice of phrase is quite appropriate to the desk and it’s discovery.

It’s no secret my feelings on who authored the poem but I have doubted myself too on occasion. Things like the styling of letters that don’t appear in the rest of the stuff. I wanted those to be simple, I wanted an easy explanation but maybe there isn’t one. I have suggested certain letters may have been crafted in the way they were simply because it was easier due to the pen type and the surface. That might have been a factor but without actually obtaining a similar pen and surface we can’t be certain. There might however be another, more fitting, reason for the differences. One which we have a good reason to entertain. He was trying out disguise or he actually wasn’t.

I’m thinking particularly of the ‘y’ and the ‘k’. In the bulk of his lexicon we are used to that two stroke, straight ‘y’ and even more so with the infamous three stroke ‘k’. In the poem we have curved ‘y’s and the two stroke ‘k’ with the main descender separated. The ‘k’ isn’t used again until the SLA letter and he uses it twice. The ‘y’s on the poem aren’t used anywhere else. In his accepted mailings the straight ‘y’s are, well they’re simple and hard to get wrong and by that I mean they don’t look out of place. The ‘k’ however, and this has been commented on, could well have been a construct because it’s not the most common type of ‘k’ for everyday use. There are several instances in the letters where, to my eye, it looks out of place and is not the right size for the accompanying characters. So, with that in mind the differences that we see in the desk poem may well be there for a reason. They might be his real characters.

Now, as for the rest of it well it’s tricky to call because there are too many variables but I’ve always found it interesting that the ’74 letters bore the most collective similarities to the desk poem. Especially the Citizen letter and the aforementioned SLA letter with that ‘k’. I have to wonder was he getting sloppy or had just ran out of variations, or was he deliberately trying to do something. I’ve mused on the idea that those last three letters were a challenge or a game to LE to see if they could spot his writing even if he changed the style. A little cat n’ mouse mini game. Maybe I’m over-thinking this but they were a blitz in comparison to the main bulk in regards style variation. One after the other, all different styles and containing close similarities in some to the poem and in the SLA letter in particular he almost seems to pick out the ‘k’ for inclusion and gets it in there twice. A ‘k’ that he hasn’t used since the desk poem and now it’s suddenly there in a glut of variable style mailings. Almost like he wants it to be part of a disguised style so that it’s considered as such, ie, not his real k.

Just thinking out loud, and making you all read it lol. Still, I kinda like that idea. That those last letters served a purpose beyond one last game. An extra muddying of the waters on the writing end of things to cover himself.

As for the meaning of the poem well … just wait till next time.

Interesting thoughts, trav…too interesting, actually. Here I was, once again almost convinced, and you had to waltz in with your interesting thoughts and screw with my convictions…

On a similar note – this seems like as good a place as any to bring it up (again): Morrill’s claim that Z’s writing was "natural". What did he actually mean by this? He says, explicitly, that in his opinion Z did not fake his writing – which is strange on the face of it, given the superficial difference between some of the letters (the Bates notes and Riverside envelopes certainly spring to mind here).

If it was not an attempt at masking his natural writing, what was it then? Radically different states of mind at the time of writing? Induced by alcohol or drugs? Mental illness?

Thoughts?

Good points T.

I know this is about the desktop, but take a look at the variation in the R’s on the Bates had to die letters.
It’s 3 letters, written at the same time, and the style is changed every time the R is written. (Might be because you know who had to be extra careful with that letter )

Trav I concur with your conclusions, but you left out that candy cane f on the desktop which is an obvious match to the one on Hartnell’s car door

Probably been asked before, but I can’t seem to find it here:

Was the desktop find made public at the time?

Probably been asked before, but I can’t seem to find it here:

Was the desktop find made public at the time?

Hmmm, that’s a good question. I have to go back and have a look.

Not conclusive, but in this rather lengthy article:

http://zodiackiller.com/InsideDetective1.html

from 1968 (published Jan 1969), neither desktop poem nor "she had to die" notes are mentioned (as far as I could see anyway, I didn’t read it very closely).

Seems odd not to include it in a piece of this type (much is made of the confession letter), so it could indicate that it simply wasn’t known/had not been released.

Which again means Avery’s famous piece some years later was the first one to feature these details.

Will do some more checking/wait for others to chip in before commenting further, but it may be of some relevance IF this info was never made public pre Avery.

The desktop poem and the SLA letter? …don’t get me started.

The g’s on the desk…those bug me too. I think we can find more similar writing from all of the top five suspects.

Do smiley faces help? haha

By the way Trav…I can’t believe I didn’t notice the extra postage on the desk! Darn it!!

The desktop poem and the SLA letter? …don’t get me started.

The g’s on the desk…those bug me too. I think we can find more similar writing from all of the top five suspects.

Do smiley faces help? haha

By the way Trav…I can’t believe I didn’t notice the extra postage on the desk! Darn it!!

If you have some evidence that Riverside is not Z then lets hear it. We keep presenting a lot of evidence, similar handwriting, similar word usage, similar misspelling, and the boot print, and the call, and the double postage and the ruse, and so on.

All we keep hearing is, "…don’t get me started."

If you have something then lets see it. Show us some, ANY, evidence this was not Z.

Norse–are you wondering if it was mentioned or if they actually showed them? I know the Bates letters were mentioned…checking on the desktop. I know somewhere I saw an old image of a detective holding up the desktop…I have looked and looked and cannot find it.

No mention of the desktop poem here in a letter from the RPD to Napa in October of 1969 – pre-Avery:

http://www.zodiackiller.com/RiversideMemo1.html

They did have prints to compare and of course shoe prints that didn’t match in size.

Norse–are you wondering if it was mentioned or if they actually showed them? I know the Bates letters were mentioned…checking on the desktop. I know somewhere I saw an old image of a detective holding up the desktop…I have looked and looked and cannot find it.

I mean if it was mentioned in the papers, as in "a poem was found, possibly connected to the crime, signed rh" or anything of that sort.

And ditto for the "she had to die" notes (though these are less relevant).

The desktop poem and the SLA letter? …don’t get me started.

The g’s on the desk…those bug me too. I think we can find more similar writing from all of the top five suspects.

Do smiley faces help? haha

By the way Trav…I can’t believe I didn’t notice the extra postage on the desk! Darn it!!

If you have some evidence that Riverside is not Z then lets hear it. We keep presenting a lot of evidence, similar handwriting, similar word usage, similar misspelling, and the boot print, and the call, and the double postage and the ruse, and so on.

All we keep hearing is, "…don’t get me started."

If you have something then lets see it. Show us some, ANY, evidence this was not Z.

All you keep hearing is "don’t get me started"? Are you serious? It was a joke for Trav. You keep hearing that?

I and others have presented it over and over again, but you have obviously not read it with any sincerity. Refer back to my post about "errors in reasoning".

SIMILAR is not proof. The FBI apparently concurred. The boot print isn’t the same size as LB, so… Double postage would have been required if that was the only stamp he had. And if that was some sort of trait, why no stamps at all on the other envelope?

Look, you can disagree with me, that is fine, but please don’t act like I haven’t legitimately stated my take–one in which authorities apparently agree. Why don’t you show evidence? If it was actually evidence, Cheri Jo would be a confirmed Zodiac victim and she is not.