Hi. I’m interested that this case has never been solved, and came here wondering if the reason might become clearer. I have always viewed this case as a tragedy for the victims, their family and friends, and not as a game. I do have a suspect in mind though I may remain unwilling to publicly discuss that. In that vein, I have a few questions that seem to bear upon the subject matter here.

What are the definitions of defamation (slander and libel) that the resident Zodiac experts and board moderators apply?

What is the definition of "evidence" that the resident Zodiac experts and board moderators apply for the purpose of discussing suspects? Is it "admissible evidence at trial," or facts "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" or something else?

What is the definition of "proof" that the resident Zodiac experts and board moderators apply to evidence as requisite to any conclusions that a suspect should be investigated by the authorities in an effort to close this case?

For example, coincidence or a series of coincidences that by themselves might not be admissible at trial or might not be sufficiently probative to constitute proof of an element of a crime or identity of a perpetrator might nevertheless be enough to lead to further inquiry that could produce admissible evidence. Therefore, are such things out of bounds for discussion here, or grounds for ridicule or dismissal?

Thanks in advance to anyone who wishes to assist me in addressing those threshold questions. If I have missed threads that specifically address those questions, I apologize and ask that you kindly direct me to the relevant posts. If I have posted this in the wrong forum, I apologize and plead the ignorance of a raw newcomer to your forum.