It’s personal!!

Seriously though…me and some of my closest friends here disagree or have different points of view. If we all saw things the same way, what would be the point of discussing anything–just to pat everyone on the back?

I have never seen nor heard of that being anything other that a "/"…just like what was used in the title.

As with all "art", I guess it’s perception.

I see nothing but an "I" especially when you compare it to the very slanted slash in the title and when you put it in the context of the sentence. Regardless, the speaker of the poem isn’t.. poetic enough ( for lack of a better word) to write about herself in the 3rd person. That was the point I was making earlier about it being an inferior poem.

As for the title, sounds to me exactly how a psychpath feels. I can imagine Manson writing lines with the same sentiment.

However, if that is a slant, as apparently everyone but me agrees it is, than yes, it is possible to interpret it as being about suicide idealization.

Wow I’m really surprised to see people feel so strongly about this being a suicide poem. I see suicide as an "I" thing. Not in the third person. "Cutting, cleaning" definitely feels like a hunter/prey thing to me. "HER red dress" and "someone will find HER". That’s someone hurting someone else. Sick of living UNWILLING TO DIE is someone miserable but won’t commit suicide. Law enforcement saw this as a morbid poem about murder and I have to agree.

If this poem was not written by Zodiac or by Bates killer, the author may not have laid claim to it simply out of sheer embarrassment. It is amateur — but also highly personal.

Wow I’m really surprised to see people feel so strongly about this being a suicide poem. I see suicide as an "I" thing. Not in the third person. "Cutting, cleaning" definitely feels like a hunter/prey thing to me. "HER red dress" and "someone will find HER". That’s someone hurting someone else. Sick of living UNWILLING TO DIE is someone miserable but won’t commit suicide. Law enforcement saw this as a morbid poem about murder and I have to agree.

GOOD POINTS!

I know I keep pushing Ross, but to be fair I thought the poem was by Zodiac long before I ever heard of Ross. And, as Morf keeps pointing out, if it is by Z, the suspect pool shrinks dramatically.

Now be honest, how many of you that really think this poem is not Z, ALSO have a POI with no connection to Riverside? I’m just asking.

I believe it to be the author projecting themselves onto another; her own self. There is a term in psychology for it, I just cannot think of what it is right now.

It’s like, "I have a friend who wants to kill herself"….when in reality, the person is talking about them self.

On the outside looking in.

Girls cut. They slit their wrists. That is what I get from it. A suicidal girl who is talking about slitting her wrists (a clean cut) and the blood getting onto her "new" dress…another thing she doesn’t care about. It was red anyway…no one will notice. No one cares.

When she does attempt it (if even fantasizing), she is found before death, but just wait until next time…"I’ll make you care…you’ll see..just you wait!"

I see a lonely, sad individual who was probably trying to reach out for help, but no one noticed.

I don’t see a man giving a darn about blood getting on a "new" red dress and I don’t think that thought would even come up. Just MY perception.

Now be honest, how many of you that really think this poem is not Z, ALSO have a POI with no connection to Riverside? I’m just asking.

I don’t have a POI – period.

Do you? And does he happen to HAVE a connection to Riverside? And could this fact possibly be influencing the way YOU think about the poem?

Works both ways, no?

I believe it to be the author projecting themselves onto another; her own self. There is a term in psychology for it, I just cannot think of what it is right now.

I think it’s called projection, simply – could be wrong, though.

Anyway, it’s a common enough thing.

Also, writing about oneself in the third person isn’t an advanced device – it’s something anyone who has read a bit of literature could have easily picked up: The desktop poem is an amateur attempt at writing a poem in the style of certain modern poets – it’s cliche, as I keep saying, and the choice of POV goes right along with that.

Here is what I wrote yesterday about the subject (in a thread where it was off topic, sorry) :

If I was presented by the desk top poem and had no knowledge of the Zodiac case whatsoever and someone asked me what that poem was about and what kind of person wrote it I would say:

It was written by a girl torn between the desire to die and to live.
The poem is about herself.
This girl once tried to commit suicide by cutting herself, but it was a half hearted attempt and she was found and saved.
She still have thoughts of suicide and plan to do it again at least in her thoughts.

Sick of living/unwilling to die
cut.
clean.
if red /
clean.
blood spurting,
dripping,
spilling;
all over her new
dress
oh well
it was red
anyway.
life draining into an
uncertain death.
she won’t (smudge)
die.
this time
someone ll find her.
just wait till
next time.
rh

Now be honest, how many of you that really think this poem is not Z, ALSO have a POI with no connection to Riverside? I’m just asking.

I don’t have a POI – period.

Do you? And does he happen to HAVE a connection to Riverside? And could this fact possibly be influencing the way YOU think about the poem?

Works both ways, no?

PaulAverly-"I know I keep pushing Ross, but to be fair I thought the poem was by Zodiac long before I ever heard of Ross."

He said he thought it was Z before he ever heard of Ross. I did too. Even if Ross wasn’t Z, I still believe Z wrote that poem, and until somebody disproves Sherwood Morrill (and our own Traveller1st)I will continue to believe we are looking for Somebody who was in the RCC library

I don’t need an interpretation of the poem, or even Sherwood to tell me the handwriting matches because there is a big fat candy cane F I can see with my own eyes.

No disrespect, but so what? I have candy cane f’s. We’ve seen handwriting from dozens of suspects that have similarities to Z’s.

The desktop y’s, d’s, and b’s are unlike ANY of the ones from known Z correspondence… unless someone can show me one. Just one.

I’m curious, what things don’t you agree with in the first few comparisons in this thread? viewtopic.php?f=80&t=18

I was obviously reading the discussion about this on the ‘other/wrong’ thread and pondering whilst reading people’s replies. I was thinking about interpretation and it’s precarious nature. Even moreso in this case because I personally believe that one of Zodiac’s traits was borrowing. Unfortunately his other traits seem to include misdirection and obscure referencing. Areas where we are left with, or even directed into, speculation.

That is why I dropped in the Mikado quote. A bit tongue in cheek of me because I was thinking about the discussions that have occurred over the years concerning that quote and was Zodiac referring to killing himself or wanting to or had he put his personae or alter-ego to rest? We don’t really but a thought occurred to me and I PM’d Tahoe for her thoughts on it and she suggested I post about it.

Here is part of the PM I sent.

Do you know off the top of your head was this kind of ‘discussion’ regarding the poem ever in the papers or the press? The reason I ask is because I was pondering the relevance of that Mikado quote and in a certain context it might make sense as Zodiac having a ‘dig’ at people’s speculation. The other thing that occurred to me about that quote is that it contains the word ‘plunged’. That same word used in the confession letter regarding the attack on Cheri Jo with the knife. I’m thinking out loud really but I did wonder if Zodiac included that reference in relation to the poem/riverside case because it mentions suicide (desk interpretation) and plunged (confession letter wording of the killing). Just a thought and it comes in the first letter for 3 years after the LA TImes letter where he specifically references Riverside.

So…was there press speculation in the interim? Would be interesting to know simply from the pov of relevance to that quote.

I thought it was interesting that in the context of us wondering what it the poem could have meant that Zodiac uses a quote that ‘includes the word ‘plunged’ and the word ‘suicide’. Plunged might just qualify as Zync from Zodiac himself but I thought it appropriate that the quote contained a specific descriptive term from the confession letter and a possible interpretive term of the poem – both pertaining to the CJB case.

Doesn’t really help us nail down what the poem is about but for my 2 cents I can see it from both sides. I am of course biased towards it being by Zodiac but even at that the content is somewhat misleading. I could make some very good interpretations of it but there’s that problem again …. interpreting.

He said he thought it was Z before he ever heard of Ross. I did too. Even if Ross wasn’t Z, I still believe Z wrote that poem, and until somebody disproves Sherwood Morrill (and our own Traveller1st)I will continue to believe we are looking for Somebody who was in the RCC library

Fair enough. I only responded because his question seemed to imply that there’s bias involved in not buying Z as the author. And generally speaking that does work both ways.

I think you’ll be waiting in vain for someone to positively disprove Morrill and Trav – that’s pretty much the nature of the thing – so if that’s where you are, you’ll probably remain there.

As I’ve said before, this is very much "agree to disagree" territory – and I think I’ll leave it at that for now.

As far as I’m concerned Morrill’s verdict was disputed – and the FBI were unable to confirm it. I see no reason to trust Morrill implicitly over Shimoda or the FBI. "Inconclusive" means just that for me. I prefer not to build any part of a theory on something which may or may not be relevant.

Anyway, I’ve had my fill of desktop debate for now – I’m sure I’ll revisit the topic, but for now I’m out. It tends to get repetitive – and I tend to get frustrated and unpleasant, which is no good to anyone.

He said he thought it was Z before he ever heard of Ross. I did too. Even if Ross wasn’t Z, I still believe Z wrote that poem, and until somebody disproves Sherwood Morrill (and our own Traveller1st)I will continue to believe we are looking for Somebody who was in the RCC library

Fair enough. I only responded because his question seemed to imply that there’s bias involved in not buying Z as the author. And generally speaking that does work both ways.

I think you’ll be waiting in vain for someone to positively disprove Morrill and Trav – that’s pretty much the nature of the thing – so if that’s where you are, you’ll probably remain there.

As I’ve said before, this is very much "agree to disagree" territory – and I think I’ll leave it at that for now.

As far as I’m concerned Morrill’s verdict was disputed – and the FBI were unable to confirm it. I see no reason to trust Morrill implicitly over Shimoda or the FBI. "Inconclusive" means just that for me. I prefer not to build any part of a theory on something which may or may not be relevant.

Anyway, I’ve had my fill of desktop debate for now – I’m sure I’ll revisit the topic, but for now I’m out. It tends to get repetitive – and I tend to get frustrated and unpleasant, which is no good to anyone.

Found this post by "bruce3" over at zodiackiller.com :

http://zodiackiller.fr.yuku.com/topic/9 … QzU0WSG-94

There has been discussion that the Riverside letters were only confirmed by State Examiner Sherwood Morrill. This statement by the FBI relates :"However,consistent hand printing characteristics were noted in the Q 85-Qc 100 letters* which indicate that one person may have prepared all of the letters, including the Riverside letters [11/29/66; 4/30/67 -3 ]and the message on the desk top[error -desk top underside or as the photographer that took all of the desk photos has affirmed several times-Toschi has also] in the Riverside case."
So it wasn’t just Morrill even though he was professionally world authority on Z’s writing.

*October 13,1969 – April 24, 1978

If I’m not mistaken Shimoda went on to backtrack and concede the poem could possibly be from the Zodiac.

Yes, the post from Davis (Bruce3) has been linked to before.

The FBI points out similarities in many potential/suspected/unconfirmed Z missives, including some which positively stink of being fakes. That’s standard procedure, it would seem (read the FBI files, they’re loaded with such missives).

If I can take "maybe" as "yes", then someone else can come along and take – by the exact same "logic" – "inconclusive" as "not bloody likely". *

The fact remains that the FBI did not confirm Morrill’s conclusions. As for Shimoda changing his mind, I have no idea. I have never seen any documentation of Shimoda’s desktop analysis, only his verdict on the Bates notes.

* Or to put it differently: You can’t take the FBI pointing out similarities (which they do, again, with many samples/exemplars) as some kind of support for Morrill’s conclusion. That simply doesn’t make sense. These aren’t regular joes discussing the case over a beer – they’re professionals. The FBI’s analysis yielded a different result from Morrill’s: He was seemingly certain that Z was the author, whereas the FBI were unable to conclude that he was. The difference should be obvious.