After having some good laughs about letting stuff go, killing cows or what someone may or may not ask Patricia Hautz, I’d like to come up with something particular she had written (recognizing her own handwriting but not remembering the letter itself..).

This is what she wrote:

‘Perhaps a story about the boy that killed her could be more rewarding.’

Besides the fact that Mrs. Hautz would prefer an article about the killer (instead such a ‘human interest story’ about the victim), imo there is something completely wrong with that sentence.

‘..the boy that killed her..’

So, how did she actually know that it was ‘a boy’ who had killed CJB? Well..she might have guessed.

Nevertheless: It could have been

a.) a woman
b.) one man
c.) two men
d.) a boy
e.) two boys
f.) an alien
g.) two boys and one girl
h.) a boy and a girl
i.) two girls
j.) two women
k.) one woman, one man
l.) one woman and a boy
m.) one man and a girl
n.) a cow
etc.

BUT, Patricia obviously knows at least three things about the killer. First, that the killer(s) was or were MALE. Second, that the killer was acting ALONE. And finally, that the killer was a BOY rather than an adult (man).

Ok, let’s repeat this..just for the records..she wrote that the killer was male, young and acting alone? Seriously? Just like that? She knows about the age of the killer?

Try it by yourself. Imagine you wrote a letter to a newspaper regarding any college homicide. How would you name an anonymous killer you didn’t know at all? A boy? Or would you rather use words such as ‘the person’ or ‘the killer’? She might have guessed that CJB’s killer was male and acting alone..but wouldn’t you still have named the killer ‘the person’ or ‘the man’ instead of ‘the boy’?

IMO it absolutely doesn’t make sense that PH refers – twice – to a young, male person. Except she had knowledge about how old the killer of CJB actually was.

Still not sure about that? Well, she even continued, thus she must’ve been quite sure about the ‘boy’ issue:

‘If people were to read of the life of a boy that turned killer, they might stop to think about the lives of their own children.’

What’s she saying? ‘A boy’ again? Uh..sorry, I forgot that she even appears to know about how the boy’s life had turned into that of a killer..ah..alright..

Call me names (please don’t), but imo PH definitely knows who had killed CJB. And, as far as I know, she has never been interviewed regarding this issue by the police.

Oh, not to forget that she wants to be let alone regarding any connection to Z’s activities, correct? Of course..

What would you think if she had written the following sentence:

‘I know it was a boy who had killed CJB.’

QT

How many killers back then were female let alone a cow (I love that)? I think she just made an assumption that the killer was male given the times. You make a good point about "boy" given what I just said. I would, without knowing age, likely use "male" or "man". But again she could be assuming the killer was around Cheris age.

I also don’t have a problem, so to speak, about her making the statement – a boy turned killer. I understand she seems to be sympathizing with a killer more than the victim but on the other hand she is addressing the root of the crime. What drove him to do what he did? Knowledge would be power to stop would it not?

Soze

Its possible she knew him, but even if she didn’t, I think she was saying boy to try drumming up empathy for him. A college age male is not a boy and she knew that.

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

Finished reading the thread, yes it’s painful.

1. Butterfield’s intv. can not be the last examination of this issue.

2. As Norse stated, the letter itself doesn’t rank in relevance to the case — or does it?

3. While Norse is certainly correct that this one ‘dear editor’ blurb ranks at zero to confirming/excluding the Zodiac to the crime of murder, a bona fide communication from Zodiac is, in itself, always related to solving his identity, as these items are as elusive as a genuine Da Vinci, a lost Egyptian tomb, or even a newly found scroll near the Dead Sea. Each one adds dimension to all other existing aspects of the case.

4. Hautz said she did not remember writing this particular letter. Out of all the letters she wrote, would not this one be the most memorable ever? As it involved a murder of all things, which in Riverside then, was an anomaly you might even say ‘everyone’ who lived there in 1966 remembered, many of you being history buffs, and yet, she did not remember writing (typing) this one which asked for something a bit different than what most who had their daughter/sister/friends throat slashed would ask for….this one asked for attention….for Cheri’s murderer. Strange.

5. The way to conclusively solve who authored the letter is to examine it for a typewriter match. Assuming the original exists, which I believe it does, this then can lead to owners of said typewriter and possibly exclude Hautz or any of the Z suspects in theory.

6. Zodiac would have read her other previous letters to the editor and with that knowledge could also easily ‘become’ Hautz for the purposes of one which he actually authored. To do this (for this letter, the envelope being harder to type? And yes that is another issue) Z would need to see Hautz handwriting beforehand to be able to practice writing it. He would have wanted to see an actual envelope she adressed if possible. Was this likely, feasible, even possible at all?

If so, there is no reason, in my mind, to write off the Press Enterprise envelope and letter as genuine Zodiac, yet, Hautz recognition of her penmanship notwithstanding.
The word ‘Editor’ is an exact match for Zodiac handwriting, after all. The tone of the typed prose is as Zodiac in the Badlands, Marco, and Exorcist letters.

Correct, two handwritings on the envelope.

IMO it’d be a good idea to confront Patricia Hautz with two issues:

1.) We clearly assume that you do know the murderer of CJB.
2.) Why did you write that letter?
3.) The ‘Editor’ handwriting is not yours. Whose is it, then?
4.) Why did you refer to a boy if not knowing the age of the killer?
5.) Why wouldn’t you remember such a letter at all?

We are handling a homicide case. It is not asked too much to answer those questions.

If she still hangs on the point that she can’t remember having written the letter, it might be a dead end. But to be honest, point 1 is the most important one. Either she immediately refuses and rejects having knowledge about CJB’s murderer (at least a statement..) OR she would wait what ‘happens next’. ‘What happened’ is the #1 investigative question to suspects in police interviews.

According to her reaction, certain issues might come up not only in the crowd but also possibly in her own mind, if she still covers a murderer. Just to have a small-talk about a letter would not be enough for her to reveal the killer’s identity if she was a friend of him. If she gets such slight pressure, however, it’ll be clear very soon that

a.) she knows nothing about Z
b.) she might admit due to being afraid of legal consequences
c.) she continues to protect Z

In any case, she wouldn’t get hurt and the result could be a solved Patricia Hautz issue. If she stopped reacting, it’s a police issue, imo.

Not to forget, this letter was picked out for being suspicious communication regarding the CJB case..if she had written the letter like sort of a stupid school girl, ok, but now it’d be time to get the things cleared up (btw..its absolutely stupid to write a letter to the editor simply regarding a 1-year-anniversary murder case..why should someone do that, after all..if not knowing the killer or the victim…in her case she obviously knew rather the killer than CJB…).

It could also make sense to dangle impunity in front of her if she revealed the identity of the co-author (if that was the case). There also is the possibility that she had written the envelope only..

QT

Does anyone else find the spacing in between words and symbols odd? Kinda like the spacing in Zodiac’s handwriting?

I don’t see that, Sox, only the similar ‘voice’…as far as what Trader said, yeah but I think you soft pedal a confrontation, not a full ambush style, I think you meant immunity there at the end. She doesn’t know who killed Bates, that would be a non-starter in my view.

To get her talking about the mid-sixties period first, then bring in the other letters she wrote to the paper’s editor as a behaviour during that period….she would be older now having lived most of her life, the point being an immediacy to the situation isn’t required, just a final memory of that letter, or a firm denial in whatever terms she wants to use that she never sent it.

She doesn’t know who killed Bates..

May I ask what makes you believe that?

She indeed might have had her life and so did Z. CJB did not, nor did her murder lapse.

QT

In my view, you have to assume she is not part of the crime that night, at least if you want anything out of her; if she was part of it, it surely wasn’t in action. Bates was killed by a man, who first disconnected the coil on her distributor cap. That much is known. As to who it was, the 75 police officers and detectives who initially worked the case gave everyone a chance to put their two cents in.

Keeping a secret on who killed Bates for 50 years isn’t realistic, great for a movie though )). Approaching her as a sovereign citizen would be my instinct.

I would find letters she previously wrote to that paper, if any in record, and use them to jog her memory of the era, then proceed as I stated above….

Reading through this thread, I found the post by AK Wilks interesting.

viewtopic.php?p=913#p913

I agree it’s possible Zodiac found this envelope discarded in the trash and used it to send the letter.

Doing further research into this letter, I was struck by what she submitted to Butterfield for an example of her handwriting, that it is from a study of poetry. You can see it here, scroll down…

http://zodiackillerfacts.com/main/river … -jo-bates/

Twicknam Garden is a sort of morbid poem by the famed John Donne about unrequited love. Couldn’t help but notice how "vial" is spelled "phial".

http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/donne/twickenham.php

Mind you, I’m not trying to implicate this woman, just saying the poetry has a loose connection to Zodiac. Sort of raises the possibility she and Zodiac were in the same room at one time as AK Wilks suggests. Possible she knew him if even vaguely. It might be worth talking to her about the classes she took, what libraries she frequented, such as public libraries, I think she went to a different school than CJB?

I looked at the author of this letter in comparison with the "zodiac", it doesn’t seem they’re the same person due to that one’s patterns ALMOST do not appear at all at "zodiac":

I don’t believe the Z typed out this letter. The letter was from Patricia herself!

Maybe Patricia was a psychology student? Perhaps she was interested in the killer’s side of the story, in order to understand more about him! This is why she said it would be a good idea to psychoanalyze what kind of boy would do this to Cheri. In the letter, that’s pretty much what she’s asking in a different way! Makes me think she had an interest in psychology, and probably into the field. I, myself like to know the psychology and thoughts of the killer. It’s always the side of the victim you hear about in media! Nothing wrong with wanting to know more of or about the psychology of a killer.

Nothing cold or suspicious about her letter imo. It’s rather enlightening instead of cold to have a desire to understand and psychoanalyze a killer. The letter is about examination and deep thought rather than a taunt.

Anyone know what this Patricia went into career wise? Does she work in psychology???

I don’t believe the Z typed out this letter. The letter was from Patricia herself!

Maybe Patricia was a psychology student? Perhaps she was interested in the killer’s side of the story, in order to understand more about him! This is why she said it would be a good idea to psychoanalyze what kind of boy would do this to Cheri. In the letter, that’s pretty much what she’s asking in a different way! Makes me think she had an interest in psychology, and probably into the field. I, myself like to know the psychology and thoughts of the killer. It’s always the side of the victim you hear about in media! Nothing wrong with wanting to know more of or about the psychology of a killer.

Nothing cold or suspicious about her letter imo. It’s rather enlightening instead of cold to have a desire to understand and psychoanalyze a killer. The letter is about examination and deep thought rather than a taunt.

Yes, the Patricia Hautz letter unremarkably was typed by Patricia Hautz. There is no mystery regarding this communication anymore.

Except that Patricia Hautz has never been interviewed by the police for sending such anonymous Z-related letter. Not only that she sent it "To the Editor" but was even Z’s handwriting on its envelope (ATTN: Editor), too.

Oh, I forgot…somebody asked her and she mentioned she didn’t want to have anything to do with it, anymore. But she obviously had. IMO it is tampering with evidence, even illegal, to NOT investigate her role at that time.

There was one valued person on this board who had her contact, please reconsider. She was so much involved into Z writing letters like she did by herself, letting Z write on the envelope, my 50 cents.

QT