Some people just refuse to let it go, Norse. They want there to be something so badly, that they make up fantastical scenarios about Z pulling the envelope out of the garbage, etc.

"There isn’t any symbolism. The sea is the sea. The old man is the old man. The boy is a boy and the fish is a fish. The sharks are sharks, no better, no worse."
– Hemingway

I like that quote.

They say in psychology if information does not jibe with someone’s prior beliefs, they will discard the beliefs if they’re weak and will discard the information if the beliefs are strong. Even when presented with what appear to be obvious facts, we tend to hold on to our truths.

That is why, in my opinion, so many hold on to their POI’s even when presented with information which declares otherwise.

No different with the PH letter. She could outright state "I WROTE IT" while holding a picture of her driver’s license…and to some, it would not matter. Lots of things like this in regards to the Zodiac case. That is why it’s so important to stick to facts because speculation doesn’t get one very far.

Same thing as with the Jack the Ripper case.

People see what they want to see and ignore the rest.

What Patricia Hautz says in her letter is pretty standard fare: If we pay some attention to our boys before they’re allowed to develop into vicious killers, then we will be better off for it.

Similar opinions have been expressed numerous times before – and it’s very common that members of the public express them in the aftermath of an episode which has been covered by the media.

Just look at Twitter or Facebook today – the same thing happens all the time. It’s the idea that we – society – are only interested in tragedies when they’re presented to us as a form of diversion or entertainment by the media.

There’s nothing sinister about Hautz’ letter – and she doesn’t condone or justify the event itself at all. She merely expresses a very common view, nothing more.

Besides (for the umpteenth time) what is the significance of this letter? Is there ANY reason to think that Patricia Hautz (who has been tracked down and pretty much confirmed that she did indeed write the thing) had anything to do with Bates’ death?

It’s possible to interpret anything and everything in any sort of way – but this letter is by the looks of it completely irrelevant, it has no bearing on either Bates or Z.

Above points cannot be denied. However, there is some indication that the Patricia Hautz letter is Z-relevant, too:

– The letter is addressed to the ‘Editor’..this not enough, the handwriting is very close to Z’s
– The letter went to the Press Enterprise in Riverside..not LA Times, Sacramento Bee or similar.
– ‘ATTN: Crime’ was used on the envelope containing the anonymous confession of CJB’s murder..such ‘ATTN’ was used on the envelope of Hautz’ letter, too
– Author mentions ‘Cheri’, not Mrs. Bates, not Cheri Jo Bates, not ‘college girl’ etc. Why using her name if she hadn’t known her personally?
– The author justifies the crime in an indirect way – ‘why not reading about the killer instead of the victim?’ is at least a doubtful attitude.
– Not a single emotion or word about the loss of CJB’s life. Instead? ‘Are we laying the blue print for another killer?’ Obviously she didn’t care about ‘Cheri’s’ life at all. So why writing about her killer?

QT

She was addressing the Editor. We here are taught to use ATTN when addressing someone in particular. I learned this in high school and still do this today. Most likely she wrote the Press Enterprise because Riverside is where this happened and the PE was the major newspaper reporting about it. Cheri was her name. In the year books I have she is referred to as Cheri Bates. I think Patricia was concerned about all women and that is why she felt a need to focus on the type of person who would do such a thing and why.

She was addressing the Editor. We here are taught to use ATTN when addressing someone in particular. I learned this in high school and still do this today. Most likely she wrote the Press Enterprise because Riverside is where this happened and the PE was the major newspaper reporting about it. Cheri was her name. In the year books I have she is referred to as Cheri Bates. I think Patricia was concerned about all women and that is why she felt a need to focus on the type of person who would do such a thing and why.

In the yearbook, yes, this is how close PH was connected to the case..never ever would I call a victim by his/her first name if I didn’t know her, but maybe this is different in the US. Riverside? yessss this is where the case had happened – and obviously PH had READ the article she was referring to INSIDE the press enterprise..no, even in the ‘Press’. So she HAD received that particular newspaper. All of this is true but to let PH go without any interrogation about this letter appears to be wantongly negligant. I wouldn’t think a single second about that.

QT

All of this is true but to let PH go without any interrogation about this letter appears to be wantongly negligant. I wouldn’t think a single second about that.

What would you interrogate her about, out of interest?

Butterfield tracked her down and talked to her. She answered all his questions: Yes, it’s my handwriting. Yes, it sounds like something I would have written at the time. No, I can’t remember writing that particular letter all those years ago.

Is any of that suspicious?

Again – what is the implication here? Do you suspect Patricia Hautz of being involved somehow? Or do you suspect that she did not write the letter – but that Z did, using her identity, as it were?

The former I won’t comment on beyond saying that it seems completely arbitrary to suspect her of any wrong doing.

The latter, well – let’s consider it: Z writes a letter, using the identity of a person who might have written the very same letter herself (as she has confirmed). The handwriting on the envelope matches that of the same person (as she has also confirmed). And all of this takes place without the person herself (or anyone she knows) being any the wiser.

Is this likely?

Here’s the thing: To me, you seem to start at the wrong end here somehow: Is every single detail pertaining to that letter 100% cleared up? No, I guess not. Does that matter? No, it does not – because there is no reason to attach any importance to the letter in the first place.

The ONLY reason that letter was ever even remotely interesting was that people didn’t know whether Patricia Hautz was a real person or not. If it had been an alias – then yes, fine, then all those questions you ask could possibly have some interest.

But it’s not an alias – is it? And with that, there is no mystery anymore. Unless we

a) presume that the real person (PH) is somehow involved (which is arbitrary and quite preposterous), or

b) presume that Z wrote a letter which has later been confirmed as something the real person (PH) might very well have written herself (which is incredibly far fetched, in my opinion).

Beyond that – what is there?

I think she should have been asked about JFK … and possibly bigfoot but that’s just me.

Bigfoot being Zodiac? Had known it all the time..

Seriously, didn’t Butterfield say she wants her privacy to be protected? Such as – please leave me alone? That’s what I would like to, if I had been connected with a homicide, too. Was she? YES, simply by the fact that her letter was picked out as being a potential Z communication (see above).

What I do not like, in general, is to start something and not to finish it at all. What if she made that mistake when she was young? Nobody can blame her for writing a letter maniac Z eventually wanted her to write, correct?

We looked for PH at RCC and did not find her. We looked for Z at RCC and did not find him, too. Maybe if we know more about PH, we’ll find out more about Z, too (e.g. school she went to etc.).

Wouldn’t let that chance go, no matter if she can remember the circumstances of having written that letter or not.

QT

Note to self: Don’t write a letter to the editor. Ever.

Note to self: Don’t write a letter to the editor. Ever.

Especially not about a homicide case, suggesting to write a story about the killer.

QT

Note to self: Don’t write a letter to the editor. Ever.

Especially not about a homicide case, suggesting to write a story about the killer.

QT

It happens all the time though. People now just voice these opinions as "comments" under online articles. People constantly wonder about what happened to an individual to make them commit such heinous acts.

Let me try an analogy of sorts:

X is brought up as a possible suspect – for no good reason, but he’s brought up anyway. People start to scrutinize him in various ways. They discover that he once attended a performance of the Pirates of Penzance (not the Mikado, mind you – but still, it IS Gilbert & Sullivan) with his wife.

Years later it is determined that X is four feet tall, with flaming red hair, that he was born blind – and that he was by all accounts on holiday in Europe from June to November, 1969.

Now, someone tracks X down and asks him some pertinent questions, all of which he answers willingly. There is one snag, though: While X says that taking his wife to a show is certainly something he could have done, he can’t positively recall that he actually did so.

What’s the main thing here? That X attended The Pirates of Penzance? That he can’t recall this happening? Or that he’s a blind, red headed four footer who by all accounts was on holiday in Europe between June and November 1969?

Let me try an analogy of sorts:

X is brought up as a possible suspect – for no good reason, but he’s brought up anyway. People start to scrutinize him in various ways. They discover that he once attended a performance of the Pirates of Penzance (not the Mikado, mind you – but still, it IS Gilbert & Sullivan) with his wife.

Years later it is determined that X is four feet tall, with flaming red hair, that he was born blind – and that he was by all accounts on holiday in Europe from June to November, 1969.

Now, someone tracks X down and asks him some pertinent questions, all of which he answers willingly. There is one snag, though: While X says that taking his wife to a show is certainly something he could have done, he can’t positively recall that he actually did so.

What’s the main thing here? That X attended The Pirates of Penzance? That he can’t recall this happening? Or that he’s a blind, red headed four footer who by all accounts was on holiday in Europe between June and November 1969?

What does this have to do with the Hautz letter?

It pertains to Patricia herself and the scenario we find her in.