Maybe. But there are some assumptions there. I don’t think we can really say for certain that this guy had anything to do with Cheri personally. I tend to doubt that she really "brushed him off", maybe no one ever did, he just felt like they did and projected that onto a random woman.

I can accept that the killer and the letter writer are one and the same, but I’m not really sure what makes one get to the other. In other words, I don’t know what motivated him to start writing. Remember that it was six months after the murder and then another six months. It’s not like the Zodiac gloating the next day. In a weird sort of way the bates letters were all about the victim, but the Zodiac letters were all about him.

I’m glad you said that, duckking, because I have a problem with the letters too. The Confession doesn’t ring true with the actual crime in a lot of ways, nevermind why it evolves into letter writing. The desktop poem suggests that this guy saw himself as a bit of a writer I guess. But than, compared to the confirmed murders, this one seems personal to me, more about her in particular, and not just so he could boast afterward.

Serial killers evolve, so it’s possible that Z(if he killed Bates & wrote the letters in her case)may have eventually moved to seeking the attention for himself, as opposed to just mentioning the victims.

Also possible that Z didn’t kill Bates, and just started off as the writer of letters in her case, and only started killing in 1968 in Vallejo.

You should not ignore the similarities in the Bates case letters to the Zodiac letters. The confession letter uses the word, ‘SHALL’, which Zodiac was fond of. The confession letter both uses, and misspells the word TWICH/TWITCH the same was Zodiac did. The confession letter writer claims that he made a phone call to police after the murder, and we know Z did that same thing. The BATES HAD TO DIE letters appear to be signed with a letter Z. Both Z and the Bates case letter writer used extra postage. If we take all of the above, as well as Sherwood Morrill connecting the writing, there seems to be more that matches between the Bates letter writer & Zodiac, than does not match.

Now the question is, if Zodiac was involved in the letter writing only in Cheri’s case, did he fantasize that he had killed her, and thought about the murder, and decided to write letters taking responsibility? Seems disturbed, and troubled for sure. Did he know Cheri and if so, how well?

There are too many possibilities here – that’s my problem.

What we have here is:

The desktop poem (confirmed by Morrill as being the work of Z).

The murder of Bates (inconsistent with Z’s known MO, but then what IS his MO?).

The Confession letter (Z like in some ways – choice of words, misspelling – but very unlike Z in other ways).

The Bates notes (confirmed by Morrill as being the work of Z).

Now, all of the above may be attributed to Z in a number of various combinations: He wrote the poem, did not kill Bates, sent the notes but did not write the Confession. That’s just ONE possible combination among several others.

I have a problem with Morrill’s conclusions. This is the big one for me. I don’t see how he could have concluded with certainty that the desktop poem and the notes were Z’s work. And I would LOVE to see a report with details regarding his reasoning. The Riverside connection appeared at a point when the Z investigators were clearly stumped. They were desperate to make some progress. The question for me is whether this actually WAS progress – rather than a sidetrack. I’m not sure at all, be it said – I just have doubts.

There are too many possibilities here – that’s my problem.

What we have here is:

The desktop poem (confirmed by Morrill as being the work of Z).

The murder of Bates (inconsistent with Z’s known MO, but then what IS his MO?).

The Confession letter (Z like in some ways – choice of words, misspelling – but very unlike Z in other ways).

The Bates notes (confirmed by Morrill as being the work of Z).

Now, all of the above may be attributed to Z in a number of various combinations: He wrote the poem, did not kill Bates, sent the notes but did not write the Confession. That’s just ONE possible combination among several others.

I have a problem with Morrill’s conclusions. This is the big one for me. I don’t see how he could have concluded with certainty that the desktop poem and the notes were Z’s work. And I would LOVE to see a report with details regarding his reasoning. The Riverside connection appeared at a point when the Z investigators were clearly stumped. They were desperate to make some progress. The question for me is whether this actually WAS progress – rather than a sidetrack. I’m not sure at all, be it said – I just have doubts.

There are enough similarities in the Bates’ letters, desktop poem and Z letters to safety conclude that they are all the same writer or that someone is going out of their way to imitate. You try writing that poem in your own handwriting, then try imitating it. Both times it will come out looking much different than the original. You have to look at the odds too. What are the odds that so much of the writing, including common phrases, tone, theme, etc. all have such glaring similarities. It’s good to be careful and not jump to conclusions, but I can’t see how that desktop poem in anyway is a coincidence.

The hard part is figuring out if the writer and killer of Cheri Jo are one in the same. I’d love to know why Riverside LE and Avery himself think the writer is NOT the killer. Is it just a matter of not getting past the idea that Cheri Jo’s murder is a passion killing, or do they know something they’re not sharing?

The simple assumption is that Z killed Cheri. Otherwise you have to believe that there is a killer and a serial killer in the making both in the same vicinity, or that all along the writer and killer were working in tandum.

Were the Bates’ letters and Confession mailed from Riverside? Z’s correspondences were all mailed from SF. Why does Z stay quiet when it comes to the Edwards/Domingos accusation, when he willingly admits to Bates?