Just curious about a few things and how each fits into the bigger picture….I don’t have any beliefs one way or the other,nor am I making accusations, it’s just the questions are there and I want to ask them.
Cheri and her father went to Mass that morning followed by breakfast at a local diner. He was going to the beach for the day and it appears Cheri had little else on other than spending a typical lazy Sunday,hanging about.
I started thinking about dinner and one thing led to another…..Cheri had dinner sometime between 4 and 5pm…Roast Beef and veg. Strikes me that most people would not do that, by that I mean, cook such a dinner for themselves. If hereself and her father were doing " their own thing" for the day wouldn’t that the meal be something quick or at least far less substantial. ( Could there have been someone else there?)
Then there’s the call from Joseph about 5….it’s engaged. Was he ringing because he was due home for dinner (perhaps they had arranged to have dinner about that time) and he had changed plans and wanted to let her know. When he got home he wasn’t there long before leaving again.
In any case, he rang back a while later and the phone is still engaged…..seems more important that he wants to speak with Cheri. That appears to be re-enforced by his next move….he drives home.
If he was planning to be home about that time (for a prearranged dinner) then there isn’t much point in ringing just beforehand (twice). One can only assume his decision to return home at that time was his failure to contact Cheri and because it was urgent enough that he needed to speak with her.
One other thought….why does Cheri’s note read ….WENT to the library as opposed to Going or Gone to the library?
I’m not one for facts so I couldn’t really add much to this. My first thought though is, this was very much along the lines of Grant’s intensive work on the subject. I now wonder if this line of thinking could be a good companion piece or a counterbalance. Grant, in his research was focused on the biological aspects and timelines concerning human digestion and how that might help to explain the timeline and also bringing in the human element for reasons for eating at certain times and type of meal etc.
Your thinking concerns the same subject matter but more so on the human aspect for reasons. Nice thinking it is too, IMHO. You have already mentioned somethings that have peaked my interest and got me wondering too.
Apologies, some days I’m sounding board, some days I’m a brick wall.
For the sake of discussion, let’s run with that…. "Leftovers".
Yeah Fine, but lets look at it in context with what happened. Does it not still (probably) support the idea, that Cheri and Joseph had a predetermined "Dinner time" organised? She ate/just finished eating, around the same time he called! It”s not a coincidence that could be described as definitive but on balance, I think it is the most likely expalnation. She could,afterall, have cooked dinner much earlier!
In terms of the calls we would then say ….Joseph rang at 5pm, was either running a little late or had changed his plans … wanted to ring and tell her he would be home shortly or would be staying where he was or he needed to speak to her on other matters.
He found it engaged and decided to leave it "10 minutes"(speculative)…..I would suggest that this eliminates the "running late" excuse for obvious reasons.
It’s still engaged circa 5:15….if he has other plans ( not involving coming home and not a big deal), he knows she’s still there and can ring back in another 10 minutes.
But he decides to drive home and apparently, puts himself there at 5.20……Which means he’s only beeen 5mins away, when making the call in the first place.
Ringing in advance, twice, within a few minutes of intending to be home, does not make sense.
At face value, he was either intent on not coming home and simply informing Cheri…….was intent on not coming home and felt the explanation was a little more than "simple" and/or there was something "important" that he felt could not wait?
Incidentally……there is a problem with the claim that the "Autopsy does not Lie"…because it does exactly that…It does make conflicting statements.
On the one hand it states ( re stomach contents/digestion) 2 but not more that 4 hours ( since she ate) to time of death
The Autopsy was preformed at 9.35am the following morning and based on the "lividity", the time of death is put at between 9-12 hours previously.
If we assume she ate before five those times do not overlap.
However to be fair (providing we know what we think we know) the previous info above does tend to support digestion over Lividity or a time of death( taking both into consideration) between 9 and 9.30
I don’t understand what you’re trying to get at, Wier.
I don’t know where all of this is headed but based on a possible profile of CJB’s killer as an anger-retaliatory who may have known her personally, I strongly considered Joseph earlier this year. They lived alone together in a new arrangement after her mother was committed. Joseph admitted in an interview that there was some friction between them at times over (I think) curfews or something, etc. But somewhere along the way I was told that he had a pretty good alibi, as I recall. But who better to know where to find her that night if he wanted to try to work something out between them and get it off his chest? She left him a note! (But one question I had is if he would have copped to having found the note at all if he had killed her. After all, he is the only one who knew about it. He could have burned it and nobody would have been the wiser.)
Mike
Mike Rodelli
Author, The Hunt for Zodiac; 3.9 stars on Amazon and
In The Shadow of Mt. Diablo: The Shocking True Identity of the Zodiac Killer, a second edition in print format. 4.3 Amazon stars and great Editorial reviews. Twitter:@mikerodelli
by Nachtsider » Wed Oct 23, 2013 7:25 am
I don’t understand what you’re trying to get at, Wier.
Yes apologies….I did go off on a tangent. My initial thinking was the timeline and how it equates to the Autopsy report. I was trying to look at it in reverse.
The autopsy performed at 9.35 the following morning puts the time of death between 9.30pm and 12:30 am based on the lividity.
That would coincide with the witness who heard a scream and a car driving off around 10:30pm.
I just wondered then where that left the coroners other claim re stomach contents, that Cheri was Killed 2 but not more than 4 hours after eating dinner.
Is there a scenario in which both of the coroners observations are compatible or is there a problem?
In looking around the call times etc, I first thought it supported a meal between 4-5, but inadvertantly threw up questions about Joseph. I think he was very anxious to speak with Cheri, even driving home to do so when the phone was engaged. I don’t know what that means if anything. However "IF" the 10:30 ish time of death is correct, there’s a big problem with the time she ate dinner and the information.
I also wonder about the time Cheri left to go to the library.Joseph arrives home at 5:20 and Cheri has left.It’s only 10-15 minutes away…why would she leave so early when it didn’t open till 6…maybe she intended stopping off somewhere.
Just lots of questions I’m trying to make sense of.
So we’re conjecturing that the dad did it?
So we’re conjecturing that the dad did it?
In an article I read via zk.com, it states her Dad and brother were both looked at:
"Police eliminated the usual suspects — those closest to the victim. Her father, brother and boyfriend all had alibis that checked out."
http://zodiackiller.fr.yuku.com/topic/2 … mmB-HCsiSo
Family is definitely not left out when a murder takes place. Especially, since more often than not, they are involved.
by Nachtsider » Thu Oct 24, 2013 1:27 pm
So we’re conjecturing that the dad did it?
I guess that becomes part of the equation but first and foremost, I was trying to deal with reconciling both estimates for time of death based on the Autopsy.
Again, based on the lividity of the body, the Coroner is giving time of death between 9.30 and 12.30…a three hour window. That coincides nicely with the witness who claims to have heard a scream and a car drive off at 10:30.
On the other side of the equation the same Coroner (based on stomach contents) puts Cheri’s death 2 but not more than 4 hours after eating.
If Cheri died at 10:30,then either the Coroner is wrong about time of dinner OR Cheri ate later. If Cheri ate later, then there’s a problem with Josephs claims.
However, the problem could be at the other end….the Coroner could be wrong about the Lividity and the Scream heard at 10:30, had nothing to do with murder.
Or perhaps there is a way to reconcile both estimates!
Don’t forget, the time change: clocks would have been set back an hour at midnight, which may have confused auditors to Cheri’s screams.
I was actually thinking about that Dag, more so in relation to the timing of the Autopsy the following morning but I think (kinda confusing) it only makes the situation worse.
I would think that people normally do one of three things, when the clock is due to go back an hour:-
a.Adjust when going to bed
b. Adjust at time (midnight)
c. Do so the following day.
If the person who heard the scream had already adjusted the hour back,then the time of the scream would technically be 11:30..No?
In any event, I think it’s most likely the person heard the scream and simply looked at the time.
If the person who heard the scream had already adjusted the hour back,then the time of the scream would technically be 11:30..No?
In any event, I think it’s most likely the person heard the scream and simply looked at the time.
If they’d already done it, then technically it would have been 10:30.
But if they hadn’t done it yet, and looked at the clock and saw it was 10:30, then technically, it would be 9:30pm. Fall back…