I agree. Nothing about him fits and he was slandered and badgered until death.

Well I do think the research is intriguing, and the timing of him being outside and something else I read about his behavior make him interesting. And that some of these cars are tied to him is something.

But, ultimately, not only is there no smoking gun but while I could believe Zodiac would be brazen enough to laugh in the face of an investigation, I don’t believe he’s offering DNA and fingerprints out of confidence that they won’t match because of something clever he did.

And the more Mike Rodelli goes into any thread about a different POI and attacks the integrity of the person who brought him to light, the more I feel he’s compensating. Both due to the quality of the POI and the lack of substance to his.

Tho I don’t think he’s the worst ever. Earl Van Best, Jr. sounded like the best until one realizes that every single fascinating detail is either wrong or fabricated.

and the timing of him being outside and something else I read about his behavior make him interesting.

The timing of him being outside around the time of PH eliminates him in my mind. (if he even was around that night)

The kids watched Z walk away from the scene just before the cops showed up. X lived at least 3 or 4 blocks away.
He would have to:
-Jog the 3 blocks in a matter of seconds.
-Change his clothes.
-Get his dog on a leash.
-Jog back a few blocks with the dog.
-Have it all happen in the short window of time.
-All for what?

Still, he’s not as terrible as EVB.

Without a doubt Mr. X should never have been pulled into any discussion about the Zodiac case.
Mr. X’s "discovery" and publicity from an amateur crime investigator was extremely crass, and outright incorrect.
Mr. X is a complete red herring. And he will agree with that statement.

If it’s true he volunteered DNA and fingerprints then that’s just a slam dunk ruling out.

Agree. For PH: he has to leave the family home, somehow get to the theatre district without using his car or how does he explain to his family why it isn’t at home, get a cab, shoot Stine, cut the shirt, get covered in blood, leg it home, get in and changed without anyone seeing him covered in blood and carrying the bloody shirt, wash, change, get the dog and go out again, despite knowing the police would be in the area shortly after the crime.

Feels a bit like walking into a morgue here.

Anyway, to anyone who might be interested:

The thread title is hyperbole in the extreme given the nature of the “suspects” that have been promoted over the years. I suspect the OP was in a bad mood when he made this thread, because he should know that Mr X is actually one of the better “POIs” that amateurs have come up with in the long history of the Zodiac case.

That doesn’t mean Mr X is a great “suspect”. He clearly isn’t. Nothing truly substantial ties him to anything.

The most striking aspect of Mr X (in the context of the actual case) is what some people have called an “incredible coincidence” and what we can all admit is a truly great example of “zynchronicity”: he can be placed – without any doubt – very near an actual crime scene in the Z case in both time and space. Shortly after Stine was killed, this man was walking his dog a virtual stone’s throw away, and this was observed by the SFPD!

However…this isn’t a huge coincidence. Because Mr X lived there, he was walking his dog right outside his house. If he had lived on the other side of town, and had been caught walking his dog in Presidio Heights for no apparent reason, that would have been a huge coincidence. To us (Zodiac buffs, whatever), it looks like something meaningful (a coincidence that is just too huge to be…just a coincidence) because Mr X is a so-called “POI”, but it actually isn’t.

Allen wore a damn Zodiac watch. The zynchronicity is through the roof. But Allen wasn’t Z. The fact (an undeniable fact, he did wear that watch) that he wore a Zodiac watch means exactly nothing. It was coincidental, it actually had no bearing on the case.

Now, what does set Mr X apart from many other so-called “POIs” – and this is why it’s ridiculous to call him the “worst suspect ever” – is the reason he became one in the first place. And this is also where Rodelli deserves considerable credit: he didn’t arrive at his “suspect” in the manner a whole host of other “researchers” have done. He didn’t start from an utterly silly or spurious “idea”:

“My aunt always thought there was something odd about my late uncle, and I’m pretty sure he sported a crew cut at some point.”

“My neighbor was a bit creepy, and I have now established that he was – possibly – real beefy in his youth and that he – possibly – enjoyed light opera.”

“My dad was a piece of shit and he lived in California at some point.”

You get the idea, I’m sure.

No – Rodelli actually had a methodology. He didn’t target Mr X for whatever completely personal or random reason. He had a particular idea about Z’s personality, what he might have potentially done in a “civilian” capacity, and it was this idea – this methodology – that yielded the result: Mr X.

That is both very interesting (in a general sense – because we can perhaps learn something from it) and also very commendable (in a specific sense – because it separates Rodelli from a bunch of, sorry, idiots and crackpots who have forced their way into this case over the years).

However, what Rodelli did after Mr X had emerged (so to speak) sadly isn’t all that different from what many other “researchers” (including utter crackpots) have done in the course of their own “investigations”: establish “connections” that really aren’t all that compelling (at best) or just ridiculous (at worst).

Connecting dots, as I like to call it. For instance, trying to tie significant dates to significant events, but failing to properly explain what the actual significance is. Why would someone “commemorate” something by a) killing someone or b) sending a letter to the editor? Pointing out some sort of relationship between dates and events isn’t compelling in itself – this is something many Z theorists seem to have a problem with: “His mother died on April 22nd – and he killed someone on that date!” Ah, creepy, but why did he do that? And why do all the other murders he committed NOT confirm to this…pattern (if it is a pattern)?

Anyway, I have never had a problem with Rodelli as such. He’s always struck me as being far more logical and fact orientated than many others, and I actually think he deserves plenty of respect for the pure research he has done over the years: unlike certain others, the interviews he conducted with LE representatives and witnesses are actually valuable, because he (and his associates) handled them professionally/objectively, rather than pushing ridiculous agendas on the subjects, etc.

But he ended up like the rest of ’em, for me: a “POI” obsessed researcher.

I thank him very much for the legwork he’s done over the years – but I absolutely do not endorse his “suspect” and I don’t particularly care for the way he’s been handling criticism of his opinions.

Lastly, to repeat: the title of this thread is bullshit, because there are – objectively – a lot of “suspects” proposed by amateur researchers that are a lot worse than Mr X. I don’t know if Mike’s around here anymore at all (doesn’t seem to be), but if he is: you know damn well that this is so.

You can’t edit posts, it seems, in this “ghost” version of the site.

But anyway, if anyone actually reads this: by “Mike” above I mean Mike Morford , not Mike Rodelli.