BayArea60’s I think its only fair I ask you…. What the hell are you talking about?

What’s all this false and erroneous claims stuff as though I’d based anything I had said on a claim false or otherwise?

I was talking about Zodiac’s use of words, or his lack thereof, in his describing himself as the killer of the cab driver ‘over by W’tn & Mpl streets’ and saying that wording it like this seems to be him wanting to imply that he doesn’t know the name of Cherry St so he’s giving us a suggestion that he is probably not local but can’t come out direct by saying that as it’s obvious then that he’s trying to distance himself from, and having any connection with, Pacific Heights and that would cause many to be extremely suspicious.
You responded with: Who would be suspicious of what he is saying when he included the shirt?

I don’t see what him adding the shirt pieces has to do with his knowing or not knowing the name of Cherry Street. Yes, I would agree that adding the evidential pieces of shirt would help to deceive people into the idea that the man writing this letter is the same man who shot Stine and the reason is evident, he’s added the evidence and this evidence is something only Paul’s killer could have possession of. That again goes to my point about Zodiac offering the people a suggestion that the may want to put two and two together as he’s asking and arrive at Six as the conclusion. He knows and is very aware that by sending the shirt with blood in the letter that people will instantly believe this to be proof positive that the writer is the killer.
In reality if there were one writing the letters, the other out doing the murders then how difficult or unlikely is it for Killer Zodiac to pass Writer Zodiac the bits of evidence for Writer Zodiac to add in the next letter? What does that involve and is it unrealistic? Oct 11, 2:35am. Z killer arrives at Z writers home. "Here, there’s the bits of shirt to add in with the letter to make them all think it must obviously be the killer writing this because he’s the only one who’d have Paul’s shirt pieces."

After that you lose me completely lol.

"The log book should take away any confusion" What, it has a price list you mean?

" Z never suggested something indirectly, he in fact was always direct"

Ohh really? So referring to Stine as "The Taxi Driver" will be for the same reasons as he referred to Cherry as ‘Over by Maple’ wont it? That being, he did not know the name of Cherry Street, nor did he know the name of Mr Paul Stine. Yes that sounds right, he’s just ran off with his wallet containing Paul drivers licence with photo, various cards and personal effects all of which clearly show his name and Zodiac doesn’t know that his name was Paul? Yes that obviously correct because he took the wallet because he didn’t want to know anything or look inside it, that sounds accurate does it?

Zodiac knew very well what the taxi drivers name was that he had shot & Killed unless he’s completely blind and/or took the wallet with the intent being to not ever open it and look what’s inside.

He knew the cabbies name was Paul but deliberately de-personalised the murder and to call driver by his name would be to acknowledge him as a he not a thing. Referring to him as ‘Taxi Driver’ is to refer to his profession or his job description. ‘that thing’ or ‘That profession’ is avoiding having to acknowledge that the victim was a human being with feelings like him, or had brothers/sisters like Z may have had, just anything to avoid giving Paul recognition as a human being. just the same as he knew the street name was Cherry. He’s not aware of anything much is? No wonder he waltzed straight into Foukes police car without being aware it was a cop.

Even Ted Bundy, the worst of the worst, said he would have to kill a victim within 20 mins to half hour of meeting them because he could not do it once he had got to know things about them that they had told him because he himself admitted he then saw them as human beings rather than an object or an ‘It’ and something to do whatever you want with.

And he’s very aware of what it means to simply imply something and be careful to not make it obvious or even hint at that being the thing you mean to say without actually having to directly say it. Pissed him off when he believed the Blue Meanies were trying to do this to him it seems and he responds, and the only time he ever does this is now, and uses profanity by declaring:

"They did not openly state this, but implied this by saying it was a well lit night + I could see the silowets on the horizon. Bullshit."

That seemed to piss him off that they should even imply such a thing! Be he would never do such a thing himself, not Zodiac.

BayArea60’s

"I think its only fair I ask you…. What the hell are you talking about?" I was talking about what you stated, don’t get your blood pressure all wound up, but you seem here to be wanting to change what you said….You make statements that are no more than your theory, but you present them as what Z is asking us what connections his wishes us to make. this is absurd. And to prove how absurd your initial post was, you now change your wording. Please.

What’s all this false and erroneous claims stuff as though I’d based anything I had said on a claim false or otherwise?
I never said false and erroneous claims, so what the hell are you talking about? What I stated was Z had a clear intent, you simply missed it, and made up statements as to what Z knew and didn’t know. And what he didn’t mention you know all about it.

Here is what you stated and what I was replying to…..Your words so please be able to understand them.

"I am the murderer of the taxi driver over by Washington and Maple Street last night. This on face value has no clear intent"…..And to that I stated I think you missed his clear intent

Then you state….."what Z is doing is asking the readers to come to the conclusion that Z doesn’t know that area well at all because he doesn’t know the actual street name of Cherry " .

Where do you get this???? Z isn’t asking anyone anything or to come to any conclusion. He knew where the park was, and even if he didn’t go into the park, shows he knew there was a park there, and he knew how to get there, that shows me a thorough knowledge of the area he is in. Very unlike what you’re adding in here. Your theory doesn’t hold up. He knew PH, he proved it. Because he doesn’t mention Cherry doesn’t mean he didn’t "know" (as you stated) he was on Cherry (that’s your assumption), and Z didn’t ask you, me, or anyone else to come to that conclusion, again those are your thoughts, not Z’s.

And then you stated…."He’s not going to ask straight out and directly, ‘I am the killer of the taxi driver over by Maple, I apologize that I don’t know the specific street name and that is due to the fact? I am not local to that area, nor have I ever been there", " If he said that then "everyone" would "clearly" see what he was saying directly and become highly suspect of such a claim"…..

And what is Z’s claim???? "I am the murderer of the Taxi driver over by Washington and Maple Street last night"…that’s his claim…." You state that "everyone" then would "clearly see" and become highly suspect of his claim. And I say that’s nonsense speak, because of the shirt he sent with the letter. No one (not everyone as you stated) no one, would be suspect of his claim, (the murder),and no one was. But you state the opposite.

I was talking about Zodiac’s use of words, or his lack thereof, in his describing himself as the killer of the cab driver ‘over by W’tn & Mpl streets’ and saying that wording it like this seems to be him wanting to imply that he doesn’t know the name of Cherry St so he’s giving us a suggestion that he is probably not local but can’t come out direct by saying that as it’s obvious then that he’s trying to distance himself from, and having any connection with, Pacific Heights and that would cause many to be extremely suspicious.
You responded with: Who would be suspicious of what he is saying when he included the shirt?

And what I stated is correct, his statement is "he is the murderer of the taxi driver over by Washington and Maple". That’s Z’s statement. And what you just stated here is nothing like what you originally stated….You told all what Z is asking and what conclusion he wanted us to come to, totally different then what you write above. Now you state that "it seems Z is implying", totally different, isn’t it, then what I replied to, totally different from what you wrote, and you stated folks would become suspect of Z’s claim, but now you drop ‘the claim’ and that it would just make them suspicious. C’mon….

I don’t see what him adding the shirt pieces has to do with his knowing or not knowing the name of Cherry Street. But again you didn’t say that, you stated Z didn’t ‘know’ Cherry street, not if he did know Cherry Street or not, as you’re stating here. You have no knowledge of what Z knew, so don’t say it. It can mis-direct folks on the boards.

Yes, I would agree that adding the evidential pieces of shirt would help to deceive people into the idea that the man writing this letter is the same man who shot Stine and the reason is evident, he’s added the evidence and this evidence is something only Paul’s killer could have possession of. That again goes to my point about Zodiac offering the people a suggestion that the may want to put two and two together as he’s asking and arrive at Six as the conclusion. He knows and is very aware that by sending the shirt with blood in the letter that people will instantly believe this to be proof positive that the writer is the killer.

In reality, (but you realize the investigator’s don’t consider this reality, you never follow the statement "In reality, with "If") if there were one writing the letters, the other out doing the murders then how difficult or unlikely is it for Killer Zodiac to pass Writer Zodiac the bits of evidence for Writer Zodiac to add in the next letter? What does that involve and is it unrealistic? (The emotion that Z exhibits in his writing of the crimes he committed, would someone who didn’t do the deeds show such emotion.?) That to me could make this theory unrealistic. What makes your theory realistic? Nothing, just a theory.

"Z killer arrives at Z writers home. "Here, there’s the bits of shirt to add in with the letter to make them all think it must obviously be the killer writing this because he’s the only one who’d have Paul’s shirt pieces."

After that you lose me completely lol.

"The log book should take away any confusion" What, it has a price list you mean? This is why Z states over by Washington and Maple, cause that’s what’s in the log book. That’s what the cops are going to find. Has nothing to do with Cherry or his knowledge, which he exhibited to any reasonable person’s liking, without anyone making up scenarios and then telling us what Z is asking what his unwritten intentions are, like you know. Just deal with what he wrote, or be sure when you’re presenting a theory, make it just that. You’re making up scenarios, but presenting them as fact. Go back and read your own statements, ok.

" Z never suggested something indirectly, he in fact was always direct"

"Ohh really? So referring to Stine as "The Taxi Driver" will be for the same reasons as he referred to Cherry as ‘Over by Maple’ wont it? That being, he did not know the name of Cherry Street, nor did he know the name of Mr Paul Stine. Yes that sounds right, he’s just ran off with his wallet containing Paul drivers licence with photo, various cards and personal effects all of which clearly show his name and Zodiac doesn’t know that his name was Paul? Yes that obviously correct because he took the wallet because he didn’t want to know anything or look inside it, that sounds accurate does it?"

So Z must write the way you in hindsight says he must or that discounts that he took Paul’s wallet? And then you alone will tell us Z’s intentions? Z doesn’t refer to his victim’s by name. So why would you assume he should when it comes to Paul? You’ll find most serial’s don’t, cause the victims are things, their names would personalize them. Z not doing the items you wish he had doesn’t prove what he knew or didn’t know. But you wish to present your theories as factual. Read your original post, and then how you re-worded it here…..

 

Riverside has ample DNA from the Bates’ murder, so it’s safe to assume the DNA doesn’t match DNA extracted from the Zodiac letter stamps.

The DNA from the Bates murder is of a different type of DNA from the Zodiac DNA, so a comparison cannot be made.

In any case, you cannot assume that they even bothered to make a comparison.

I obviously don’t know enough about DNA because that makes no sense to me. I wonder why Riverside distances z from Bates’ case.

Thanks Nacht. That’s the first I heard of it.

Riverside has ample DNA from the Bates’ murder, so it’s safe to assume the DNA doesn’t match DNA extracted from the Zodiac letter stamps.

The DNA from the Bates murder is of a different type of DNA from the Zodiac DNA, so a comparison cannot be made.

In any case, you cannot assume that they even bothered to make a comparison.

I obviously don’t know enough about DNA because that makes no sense to me. I wonder why Riverside distances z from Bates’ case.

Thanks Nacht. That’s the first I heard of it.

As I understand it, and I´m pretty sure I´m right on this, the:

DNA found at the Bates crime scene (hair without root, in her hand) is mitochondrial DNA

DNA found on some of the The Zodiac letters is nuclear DNA

And mitochondrial DNA and nuclear DNA are two different kinds of DNA and can NOT be compared.

Here you can read about the two different kind of DNA:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometr … ysis/mtdna
mitochondrial DNA

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometr … na-nuclear
nuclear DNA

Hope this helps…

The only board to post offensive stuff, if at all, is the ‘hangout’. Write it down on a piece of paper, encrypt it and read it daily, guys.

Happy Easter

QT

Well as far as Mr Q is concerned we can say that SFPD patrol officer Pelissetti categorically states that he saw, and briefly spoke with, Qvale at or near Maple and Jackson Intersects. Kjell then, from what I am told, turns around and denies even being in the Presidio Heights area on this night. A second patrol unit also spots a white male shuffling oddly down Jackson St but is not identified and named as the officers in question did not stop this male nor attempt to speak with him.
Starting in the 70’s and continuing down the decades Mr Q makes it very clear that he does not want his name mentioned even in terms of being in the vicinity on the night Stine is killed and anyone that wishes to publically state his name in relation to Zodiac will find themselves in court shortly thereafter. Hence Armond referring to Kjell in the Documentary as "A gentleman walking his dog" and the forums and websites referring to him as ‘Mr X.’

I suppose there are two ways of looking at it. The first perspective may suggest that here we have an immigrant who came to the US with nothing but a dream and turned that dream into a very real and successful multi-million dollar vehicle import business and, having worked so hard to achieve such a respectable reputation felt that he risked having all that torn down by being linked to, or worse – suspected as being, the Zodiac Killer. That is absolutely understandable. However, you may take a slightly more cynical perspective and suspect he went to such trouble to disassociate himself and his name from the Zodiac because he had personal reason/motive to do so.

I have great respect for Mike R. ‘s determination to try to find out who Zodiac was. His suspect was one of the best researched suspects in this case. MIke did an awesome job in finding incriminating evidence against Mr. X. Unfortunately it was indirect evidence.

If Mr X. really was Z he has escaped now….

I have great respect for Mike R. ‘s determination to try to find out who Zodiac was. His suspect was one of the best researched suspects in this case. MIke did an awesome job in finding incriminating evidence against Mr. X. Unfortunately it was indirect evidence.

If Mr X. really was Z he has escaped now….

I keep hearing a lot of arguments for specific suspects that are similar to that with words like ‘Circumstantial’ or ‘Indirect.’ The truth is, that can be said for every single suspect in this case by default because if there were just one piece of solid evidence against one of the many suspects, then he’d have been elevated to No.1 on LE suspect list and possibly even indicted for the crimes.

I remember a certain prominent Zodiac community member stating something along the lines of "There’s no solid evidence to connect Kane to any of Zodiac’s crimes, such as being able to place him on LHR on Dec 20 around 11.15pm." I did have to chuckle at this because I instantly found myself asking that person "And Gaik can be placed there?"
Obviously none of the suspects can be (official suspects I mean, excluding people like Owen who was not considered as a suspect at the time in favour of being awarded the title of ‘Witness’) . If they could prove conclusively that Dick Gaik prowled the dark shadows of Lake Herman Road and Owen could recall a partial number plate that traces back to a car owned by one Richard Gaikowski then we’d not be here discussing this unsolved Zodiac case.
But I did have to point out, just because of the example used of not being able to place kane on LHR for example, that actually….

And Eduard, I am not going on Mike R’s research or claims when I speak of Kjell because I can honestly say I have neither read them nor heard what the claims are by any method or means. For me, Kjell warrants being in the top 3 or 4 suspects based on the fact that Don and Armond can’t seem to get their version of events that night to coincide with what the other one says. And, perhaps more significantly, this one statement made here:

At this point, nothing of substance can be used to warrant the statement that "Qvale is the name hidden by the FBI’s redacted efforts" at all, but what I do think points toward it likely being Mr Q is
1.He was in the area according to A.P
2.The last suspect on the page and above the ‘Eight year old witness in murder of…’ comment is a suspect that, as is evident above, listed as residing in San Francisco.
3. The witness Identified a suspect as possibly responsible, which has to mean he physically looked at him live in person, or in a photo line up, and said "That’s him" and if it was on the night of Oct 11 in the immediate area then this tends to increase the probability of it being Kjell because he is known to have been on Jackson and/or Maple.

All will be settled hopefully with the FOIA request for the release of the redacted suspects that are now dead.

in some sense it all comes down to how much belief you have in the person who has pushed forth a suspect and there research,,I have no issue with any body who claims there poi and stands by it..X looks good to me..ted K looks good to me..hell even ALA still looks good to me..yea even gaik has some suspect positives..what irks me is when others point out holes and are attacked for it.thats BS and not at all respectful to the victicms living family members..just my take-god speed…

X in my mind is definetly top 5 POI until undisputed evidence rules him out (or any other poi for that matter)

Yeah agreed. And yes this case is frustrating with the POI’s all seeming to have their own reason why they simply have to be above the other POI on the list and just as you agree and accept it also, someone comes along with "Yes but what about this POI and this really significant bit of evidence against him?" Then you say "Good point, I must now change opinion." Then some else comes along…."Pssst, over here! Are you forgetting POI No.3 and his X Y and Z reasons he has to be Zodiac?" Then you go "Of course!" then someone else comes along……

Lol.

Let’s face it, all the suspects are problematic, so no one should take it personally if they’re respectfully challenged on their poi.

Just received an autographed copy of Kjell’s autobiography on Fri. Started reading it today. I’m only on chapter 2 yet. It’s not a hard read. My only complaint is he uses way, way too many exclamation marks!

So far nothing stands out as a glaring yet indirect hint that he might be Z but there are some noteworthy points. For one thing, this guy loves to brag (sound familiar). He also talks about how lucky he is when it comes to getting out of tight spots. He is incredibly competitive, and he loves taking crazy risks. There’s an anecdote about how he was warned to stay away from this crazy bull, but instead climbs over a 7 foot fence on a bet that he could run across the field bfore the bull even notices him. Of course, the bull chases him and he high jumps the fence to escape.

The other interesting point, at least to me, is that he talks about how when he was a child a taxi driver taught him how to drive.

Let’s face it, all the suspects are problematic, so no one should take it personally if they’re respectfully challenged on their poi.

Just received an autographed copy of Kjell’s autobiography on Fri. Started reading it today. I’m only on chapter 2 yet. It’s not a hard read. My only complaint is he uses way, way too many exclamation marks!

So far nothing stands out as a glaring yet indirect hint that he might be Z but there are some noteworthy points. For one thing, this guy loves to brag (sound familiar). He also talks about how lucky he is when it comes to getting out of tight spots. He is incredibly competitive, and he loves taking crazy risks. There’s an anecdote about how he was warned to stay away from this crazy bull, but instead climbs over a 7 foot fence on a bet that he could run across the field bfore the bull even notices him. Of course, the bull chases him and he high jumps the fence to escape.

The other interesting point, at least to me, is that he talks about how when he was a child a taxi driver taught him how to drive.

I’ve read on several of Kjell’s obituaries that he often made no secret that he loved to take risks, stating that this is one reason he succeeded in business. Also, he described a vehicle once as "Goofy looking." The same childish slang wording used by Z for his two cops pulled a goof brag.