First and foremost thank you. It’s a very precise reply to my post. Why are you here? What are these 350 or so souls doing here? Why am I here? We all share a common goal and that is to ultimately get to grips with whom he was and what he created. Surely you know the saying that goes something like “all roads lead to Rome”, right? Well, in our own unique way, we travel down different roads with the hope of one day standing in front of the great spectacle known as the Colosseum. Along our way some will fall, get hurt, get pillaged, but the ultimate goal is still to reach Rome. Those who chose perilous roads have a hard journey, whilst those who travel smarter, have an easier ride. What I’m trying to say is that if any of us had positive factual details, the case would have been solved many years ago. Unfortunately, we have to roll the dice and go with the resulting coefficients. There’s not much more we can do. Regardless of our hypotheses or what road we decide to travel, we all have the same question in our mind…Who is the Zodiac?

Zecharia Sitchin was criticised for flawed methodology and mistranslations of ancient texts as well as for incorrect astronomical and scientific claims; however, the same critics can’t explain why there seems to be proof that points to ancient astronauts having visited our planet before. Is their claim, and using your terminology “falsifiable”, when so much points to visits from outer space?

Well, see – the thing is that I don’t mind if someone proposes, somewhat loosely, that the pyramids were built by aliens. It’s fine by me. I doubt they’re right, but I’m not going to mock their view either – live and let live, I say.

You are, however, putting the cart in front of the horse – or something – when you demand falsifiability from those who, simply, claim that the theory about ancient aliens is not based on accepted scientific standards and thus flawed.

There are several accepted theories about the origin of the pyramids – and by "accepted" I mean theories which do adhere to scientific standards and can be criticized, falsified, debunked and debated according to such standards. None of these theories may be correct – but they do adhere to the standards.

Some proponents of controversial theories seem to go by a "if it’s not known what or who X is, my unfounded guesses are as good as any proposed by so-called scientists" logic. And this I have a problem with. No, your guesses aren’t as good as any. It’s far more likely that humans built the pyramids. We know there were humans around at the time and we know that humans are capable of incredible feats of invention and engineering. Sure, it could have been aliens. It could have been super intelligent and now extinct beavers too. But the latter isn’t a good theory in any meaningful sense of the words "good" and "theory".

There’s a difference, in short, between saying "this is bullshit, you are crazy, go home" and saying "this isn’t scientifically sound, you may be right but it’s unlikely and you need some proof, go home and do more research".

PS

I will NOT debate ancient aliens with you. I just used this as an example, since you brought it up.

My point is simple: You can think wildly out of the box about the Z case – and that can be valuable and interesting. But it’s no good as a proper theory about the case if it’s not based on known facts. The latter is all we have.

Propose that Z was a sixty year old butcher with an incredibly small nose – and say that you base this theory on A) a phrase used by him in a letter, B) an often overlooked remark by Nancy Slover and C) the Stine composite. Fine – excellent. Now people can come in and comment, criticize and all the rest – based on those facts we all have access to.

The above should be the formula, in my opinion, when proposing an actual theory about the case. Speculating loosely and vaguely is fine too – but it should be clear what is what, and the former and the latter should be separate categories/activities.

DF, thanks for the follow-up comment, however I fail to understand your following statement.

In my line of work and with the clues available, I’m able to psychologically create a portrait of the serial killer. It’s not very hard to mentally create a composite sketch of an individual, if some of his descriptions have already been provided, regardless if they are correct or not.

So your saying that you can produce a plausible profile of someone based on incorrect discriptions? Please tell me how that is possible? If you’re going to tell me you’re psychic, please don’t.

You state in your profile preface that the profile is based after a stringent study of all the information available on the case.

Socioeconomic Level as a child: Low to middle income.
Basis for this?
• Socioeconomic Level as an adult: Low.
Basis for this?
• Hometown: West Coast United States.
• Current Residence: Unknown.
• Occupation: Retired.
Basis for this?
• Income: Low Scale.
Basis for this?
• Talents/Skills: Diverse.
• Birth order: Presumed 1st child.
statistics I presume?
• Spouse: Presumed married a few times.
Basis for this?
• Children: 1 – 3.
Basis for this?
• Relationship skills: Varied.

I personally think its great that people have established their own profiles based on their poi(s). I take from the post that you are a professional profiler. You said this is how you make a few coins… If you are a professional
please share with us your background in the field.

I also wish that you would simply post your poi. You obviously have someone in mind.

It’s me davidfrancis.

A special thank you to Tahoe27, Norse, and Talon, for taking the time of day to answer my post.

As always, I will promise to reply in kind to all of your comments.

1. Tahoe27’s comment: “Nope. No better understanding. You say you "exchanged writings with" a serial killer and studied them, but no one knows what it is you do. Also curious…in your introduction you say that your are "no expert when it comes to the Zodiac", so in your opinion, why do you then feel qualified to profile him? Not that we can’t all throw our ideas out there, you are welcome to, but you seem to be saying you are of higher authority in the field of profiling. If that is the case, and you are not an expert Zodiac researcher, why do you feel your profile is accurate? You were led to believe your replies would be severe? Interesting. Good to see you jumped right in…one would think you were well versed with this site.”

Tahoe27,

I hold my hand to heart and affirm that “everything I say is the truth and nothing but the truth.” I have, in the past, exchanged writings with serial killers, and also studied them. No one knows what I do (and I have no intention on passing on sensitive information), because I’m keeping to forum guidelines. An introductory email from a moderator states the following, and quoting from therein, “We certainly don’t want to know your full name, your address, etc.” The term “et cetera”, as you know, is a Latin expression meaning “and other things”, so I presume that not wanting to reveal my chosen field for collecting Maravedis falls well inside this forum parameter.

You are putting words in my mouth, per se, when you ask “why do you then feel qualified to profile him?” There is a great void between expertise and qualification. I can be an expert at something without being qualified; on the other hand, I can be qualified without being an expert. Most folks who are involved in this most baffling case have, at one stage or another, created (I hope) a profile of whom they believe the Zodiac to be. I’m simply following the sheep in the corral but with a slight twist due to my vocation.

Again, not once did I say, or claim, I’m of a “higher authority in the field of profiling”. I could be a forensic psychologist who through years of experience and case analysis, feel well versed, and qualified, to offer the world my unadulterated serial killer profile.

I feel that “my profile is so accurate”, due to years of dealing with individuals who have poisoned society with their mental and unstable conditions. You get to know who they are, how they behave, breathe, and appear, after a few years of stringent study.

I feel I’ve lost track of what you say when you claim “You were led to believe your replies would be severe.” I never claimed and don’t recall claiming anything to this extent. Why would my replies be severe when I’ve just joined the forum? I’m not here to be a gladiator in Rome’s biggest arena. I recall a reply I made to Mr. Maclugh “Many thanks Mr. Maclugh. I take your warning seriously”, when forewarned about my pet theory being debunked. Is this what you are referring to?

Do you recall my open introduction? This is what I had to say, “It’s good to be here. I’m no expert when it comes to the Zodiac, but thoroughly enjoy reading about the case. It seems that many plausible avenues have been researched but the perpetrator either remain at large or is deceased. Anyway, I will drop in once in a while to check on the status of affairs. Thank you.” Yes, I have from time to time “dropped in to check on the status of affairs,” but I’m certainly not well versed with the site. It’s good to, once in a while, read what other folks have to say with regards to many different subjects. I sometimes have a good chuckle when reading through the comments posted by members on both The Hangout and ZKS Chat threads.

Do not view this as an attack, but a mere explanation on my part.

Thank you.

PS

Since the color of the ocean is blue, I suppose there’s a possibility the Zodiac’s eyes could have been that color also. That is, if we are led to believe that the case has an affinity to water.

2. Norse’s comment: “Well, see – the thing is that I don’t mind if someone proposes, somewhat loosely, that the pyramids were built by aliens. It’s fine by me. I doubt they’re right, but I’m not going to mock their view either – live and let live, I say. You are, however, putting the cart in front of the horse – or something – when you demand falsifiability from those who, simply, claim that the theory about ancient aliens is not based on accepted scientific standards and thus flawed. There are several accepted theories about the origin of the pyramids – and by "accepted" I mean theories which do adhere to scientific standards and can be criticized, falsified, debunked and debated according to such standards. None of these theories may be correct – but they do adhere to the standards. Some proponents of controversial theories seem to go by a "if it’s not known what or who X is, my unfounded guesses are as good as any proposed by so-called scientists" logic. And this I have a problem with. No, your guesses aren’t as good as any. It’s far more likely that humans built the pyramids. We know there were humans around at the time and we know that humans are capable of incredible feats of invention and engineering. Sure, it could have been aliens. It could have been super intelligent and now extinct beavers too. But the latter isn’t a good theory in any meaningful sense of the words "good" and "theory". There’s a difference, in short, between saying "this is bullshit, you are crazy, go home" and saying "this isn’t scientifically sound, you may be right but it’s unlikely and you need some proof, go home and do more research".
PS
I will NOT debate ancient aliens with you. I just used this as an example, since you brought it up. My point is simple: You can think wildly out of the box about the Z case – and that can be valuable and interesting. But it’s no good as a proper theory about the case if it’s not based on known facts. The latter is all we have. Propose that Z was a sixty year old butcher with an incredibly small nose – and say that you base this theory on A) a phrase used by him in a letter, B) an often overlooked remark by Nancy Slover and C) the Stine composite. Fine – excellent. Now people can come in and comment, criticize and all the rest – based on those facts we all have access to. The above should be the formula, in my opinion, when proposing an actual theory about the case. Speculating loosely and vaguely is fine too – but it should be clear what is what, and the former and the latter should be separate categories/activities.

Norse,

Just as re-attaching someone’s arms and legs (after they’ve been chopped off in a Procrustes bed) would be a lengthy and burdensome affair, so would a discussion regarding extraterrestrial life. I’m certain you will agree that E.T. was a Hollywood created gizmo.

Okay, I understand your angle. You want me to provide you with a factual breakdown of my Character Profile psychoanalysis. I’m more than happy to oblige. It’s my opinion that you feel the need to obliterate (I mean dissect) what I have to present, so here’s to your heart’s content:

Enjoy what I have to offer.

• Murder Period: 1966 – 1969.
(Fact. Not speculation. First, Cheri Jo Bates, 1966, last, Paul Lee Stine,1969)

• Confirmed Murdered Victims: 6.
(Fact. Not speculation. Cheri Jo Bates, David Arthur Faraday, Betty Lou Jensen, Darlene Elizabeth Ferrin, Cecelia Ann Sheppard, Paul Lee Stine).

• Surviving Victims: 3.
(Fact. Not speculation. Michael Renault Mageau, Bryan Calvin Hartnell, Kathleen Johns. If I really want to be pedantic, I will include Ms John’s baby, which will now bring the total of surviving victims to 4).

• Unclaimed Murders: 3+
(Fact. Not speculation. SoCal and NorCal definitely had more than one murder).

• Name:? (Commonly know as The Zodiac).
(Fact. Not speculation. Unless you want me to include “a citizen,” “a friend,” “r-h,” “Red Phantom”).

• Age: 25 – 28.
(Fact. Not speculation. Nancy Glover, Michael Mageau, and Bryan Hartnell, have him around the same age bracket as I do. Furthermore, and in studies I have undertaken, most, but not all serial killers, develop their serial killer tendencies at around this age bracket (fact)).

• Nationality: American.
(Fact. Not speculation. His spelling is conducted in American dialect. E.G. words and terms like “tire,” “negro,” “flash light,” “cab,” “cruzing,” “peeled rubber,” “buttons,” “asses” are a certainty. Furthermore, anyone who seems to be well versed with back roads of the San Francisco Bay area gives me an indication of a local individual).

• Socioeconomic Level as a child: Low to middle income.
(Fact. Not speculation. My experience in dealing with many varied individuals has, over the years, showed me that many noted serial killers come from dysfunctional backgrounds. Frequently they were physically, sexually, or psychologically abused as children and there is often a correlation between their childhood abuse and their crimes. Serial killers are specifically motivated by a variety of psychological urges, primarily power.)

• Socioeconomic Level as an adult: Low.
(Fact. Not speculation. I’ve been able to establish that despite higher than normal intelligence, many serial killers have trouble keeping jobs, thus placing the Zodiac in the low income bracket).

• Hometown: West Coast United States.
(Fact. Not speculation. Serial killers are familiar with their surroundings. The Zodiac undeniably lived somewhere around the bay area).

• Current Residence: Unknown.
(Fact. Not speculation).

• Occupation: Retired.
(Fact. Not speculation. If there were two Zodiacs, and due to age, one has died and the other one’s retired).

• Income: Low Scale.
(Same as above. Socioeconomic Level as an adult)

• Talents/Skills: Diverse.
(Fact. Not speculation. The letters, cards, and ciphers, show me a high level of intelligence and misguide).

• Birth order: Presumed 1st child.
(Fact. Not speculation. Once again, studies have shown me that first children have a tendency to become the evil monsters of the world. Killers like Knowles, Watts, Nelson, Yates, Williams, Rader, Baumeister, Carignan, to name a few, have all been the first offspring.

• Spouse: Presumed married a few times.
(Fact. Not speculation. The notion that serial killers are mostly single individuals is nonsense. The plain simple fact is that fathers and husbands are killers too. I have many examples I can provide you with. However, due to the complexity of the individual, together with his egotistical and self-centred approach, I find it hard to believe he could have settled down with one single woman. Throughout all of his correspondence I obverse a systemic obsessiveness with what he was doing. He gives me the appearance of someone who could be rather nasty if stepped on. The type of man who feels the need to be correct with everything he says and does, regardless of what others might believe. This alone would place strenuous pressure on the relationships, and spouses would then leave. Moreover, due to his egotistical self, maybe he felt the need to be alone with no one bothering him).

• Children: 1 – 3.
(Fact. Not speculation. It all boils down to the above description of serial killers being married with children. He would have planted his seed with the hope of procreating. Now, if he was married more than once (something I believe possible) there is a great chance of a few urchins having surfaced).

• Relationship skills: Varied.
(Fact. Not speculation. His correspondence shows me a man who can be calm, precise, and calculating, but also nasty. This would impact his relationship with others.

• Height: 5ft11in – 6ft1in.
(Fact. Not speculation. The height description is based on information collected by those who saw the Zodiac first hand, Michael Mageau and Bryan Hartnell).

• Weight: 165 – 190 pounds.
(Fact. Not speculation. See above).

• Race: White Male.
(Fact. Not speculation. See above, but including Kathleen John’s and the children’s report from the Paul Stine murder site).

• Eye Colour: Brown – Olive brown.
(Fact. Not speculation. Knowing and having studied polygenics, I know that only 18 percent of the United States population has blue eyes so, statistically, I favoured the other 82 percent).

• Hair Colour: Light – Dark brown.
(Fact. Not speculation. Both Michael Mageau and Bryan Hartnell describe the individual’s hair colour as per my description).

• Glasses or contact lenses: Glasses (Sometimes).
(Fact. Not speculation. Surely no debate needed here).

• Skin colour: Medium, white to light brown.
(Fact. Not speculation. The majority of the United States population has this type of skin colour. I’ve once again gone with the majority).

• Shape of Face: Long/Oblong.
(Fact. Not speculation. The sketches provided by the police show these facial features).

• Distinguishing features: Wide jaw, possible beard, a large head.
(Fact. Not speculation. See above. Man with beard seen with Cheri Jo Bates).

• Dress: Depends on the occasion.
(Fact. Not speculation. Surely there’s no need to debate)

• Mannerisms: Slight mouth twitch when thinking.
(Fact. Not speculation. As explained to Talon – “Well, having previously interviewed a number of psychotic sociopaths, in two of them, the characteristic was quite prominent. It means that they are not comfortable with the position they find themselves in or with the answer they are about to give. In other words and unbeknownst to them, subconsciously they are aware they are about to lie, so they project the uncomfortability through a very prominent and ever slight mouth twitch).

• Habits: Drinking.
(Fact. Not speculation. A low socioeconomic status, together with his age, would have been a proponent for his drinking).

• Health: Reasonably Fit.
(Fact. Not speculation. Having walked quite a distance to the murder site at Lake Berryessa, the individual showed no signs of immediate fatigue. None that Hartnell could notice. If the individual seen by the police officers leaving the Paul Stine murder scene was in fact the Zodiac, he made quick haste of getting to the point were he was noticed walking down the street).

• Hobbies: Reading various genres including comics and fantasy, cards.
(Fact. Not speculation. The letters, cards, and ciphers, all point to the above hobbies. The Mikado (Opera) well versed in movies (the Exorcist and Badlands) and cipher work, which can be found in the works of Poe, Carroll, etc… These ciphers can also be found in some old time comics but in a verbal tone. It’s extremely hard to create cryptographic work that has remained unsolved for so long, without having good knowledge of what you are creating).

• Favourite Sayings: Dear editor/ This is the Zodiac speaking.
(Fact. Not speculation. It’s in the letters, all you need to do is count how many times they’ve been used).

• Speech patterns: Well spoken but with a very slight drawl.
(Fact. Not speculation. Bryan Hartnell and Nancy Slover have spoken about these speech patterns).

• Disabilities: Probable single birth defect.
(Fact. Not speculation. Unbeknownst to him the individual had a chemical imbalance that would later on in life develop into something extremely sinister. A maligned chromosome would lead to his egotistical, psychotic, and sociopathic self).

• Greatest flaw: Murderer.
(Fact. Not speculation).

• Best quality: Ingenious.
(Fact. Not speculation. The letters, cards, ciphers).

• Educational Background: Well educated.
(Fact. Not speculation. The letters, cards and ciphers, show a high level of education).

• Intelligence Level: High.
(Fact. Not speculation. He created ciphers that have remained unsolved for almost fifty years. Surely not down to luck?).

• Mental Illnesses: Psychotic sociopath.
(Fact. Not speculation).

• Learning Experiences: How to be the best.
(Fact. Not speculation. Throughout the last forty nine years he has been able to prove this point).

• Individual’s long-term goals in life: Be the best of the best.
(Fact. Not speculation. See above).

• How does the individual see himself: Untouchable.
(Fact. Not speculation. See above).

• How does the individual believe he is perceived by others: Crazy/Clever.
(Fact. Not speculation. The letters, cards, and ciphers, prove this point).

• How self-confident is the individual: Extremely.
(Fact. Not speculation. Taunts, phone calls).

• Is the individual ruled by emotion or logic or some combination thereof: Both.
(Fact. Not speculation. The individual shows this trait in his letters together with the Lake Berryessa attack).

• What would most embarrass this individual: To be caught and defeated.
(Fact. Not speculation).

• Strengths/Weaknesses: Well versed in numerous fields/Egotistic
(Fact. Not speculation. See most of the above).

• Introvert or Extrovert: Introvert
(Fact. Not speculation. It’s all about himself).

• How does the individual deal with anger: In a bad way
(Fact. Not speculation. Remember he claims he can do his thing).

• How does the individual deal with sadness: Not fazed
(Fact. Not speculation. If he felt sadness he would not have committed the crimes he committed).

• How does the individual deal with conflict: Needs to win
(Fact. Not speculation. Point proven over the last forty nine years).

• How does the individual deal with change: Well
(Fact. Not speculation. So many LEAs, so many detectives, so many changes, and nothing fazed him ).

• How does the individual deal with loss: Well
(Fact. Not speculation. Felt no remorse for the victims he killed. If he did he would not be a serial killer).

• What does the individual want out of life: Recognition
(Fact. Not speculation. What else could he want besides being recognised as an uncatchable serial killer).

• What would the individual like to change in his life: Nothing
(Fact. Not speculation. Once a serial killer, always a serial killer).

• What motivates the individual: Himself
(Fact. Not speculation. The Zodiac is egotistical).

• What frightens the individual: Nothing
(Fact. Not speculation. What has frightened him over the last forty nine years?).

• What makes this individual happy: Deceiving others
(Fact. Not speculation. Again, letters, cards, ciphers).

• Is the individual judgmental of others: Extremely
(Fact. Not speculation. Ask the police, Melvin Belli, Paul Avery).

• Is the individual generally polite or rude: Both
(Fact. Not speculation. Some letters show politeness, others rudeness).

• Does the individual believe in God: No. He thinks he’s God
(Fact. Not speculation. Most serial killers elevate themselves to that pedestal. Moreover, having stayed free for all these years will likely bolster his already overgrown ego and will bolster his God like belief).

• What are the individual’s spiritual beliefs: Dark
(Fact. Not speculation. Serial killers are surrounded by darkness. It’s a fact).

• Was religion or spirituality a part of this individual’s life: Yes, earlier on in life.
(Fact. Not speculation. The day the Zodiac got baptised).

Remember that the FBI, PD, and psychologists, have themselves built a complex file on the behavioural aspects of the Zodiac. Something that they’ve kept locked away from us. Although seemingly not factual, and using your own words, “But it’s no good as a proper theory about the case if it’s not based on known facts,” surely you will not dismiss it as throw away evidence?

Thank you.

3. Talon’s comments: “So your saying that you can produce a plausible profile of someone based on incorrect discriptions? Please tell me how that is possible? If you’re going to tell me you’re psychic, please don’t. You state in your profile preface that the profile is based after a stringent study of all the information available on the case. Socioeconomic Level as a child: Low to middle income. Basis for this? Socioeconomic Level as an adult: Low. Basis for this?
Hometown: West Coast United States. Current Residence: Unknown. Occupation: Retired. Basis for this? Income: Low Scale. Basis for this? Talents/Skills: Diverse. Birth order: Presumed 1st child. statistics I presume? Spouse: Presumed married a few times. Basis for this? Children: 1 – 3. Basis for this? Relationship skills: Varied. I personally think its great that people have established their own profiles based on their poi(s). I take from the post that you are a professional profiler. You said this is how you make a few coins… If you are a professional please share with us your background in the field. I also wish that you would simply post your poi. You obviously have someone in mind.

Talon,

To spare me a world of work, and not wanting to repeat myself, read my reply to Norse. You will find all the answers you are looking for there.

Now, regarding your question about establishing a plausible character profile, allow me to give you a helping hand in your chosen profession:

1. Regardless if the information provided is incorrect or not, the profile can still be created. And yes, it will be plausible “according to the information you have at your disposal”, although not admissible to law enforcement agencies. If I supply you with a list, you as an upcoming profiler should be able to construct a descriptive persona. What that means is that, logically, we will be looking for the incorrect perpetrator; nevertheless a profile has still been created.

No, I assure you that I’m not a psychic. I will, if you don’t mind, keep my chosen profession away from forums. If you take the time to read my reply to Tahoe27, you will learn a bit more about I.

Thank you.

David, to my eye your profile of Zodiac emerges as immensely more sensationalist than substantive. Coupled with your remark about aliens I would guess that you write for a tabloid newspaper by profession, the National Enquirer, perhaps, or the like.

to paraphrase inigo montoya – you keep using the word "fact". i do not think it means what you think it means.

kidding aside, something being a statistical tendency doesn’t make it a fact. just saying.

As masootz stated, many of your facts are not facts. You are assuming SO many things. No professional profiler would state something as a fact when it is unknown–especially with "alleged" victims.

"I believe" will take you far communicating with people in regards to this case.

We certainly don’t ask you to tell us your occupation. Many would not necessarily believe you if you told them anyway. That is the nature of a message board.

This case brings out too many people who think they know it all and enjoy telling everyone EXACTLY how it is. And THAT is a fact.

Thanks for the long reply, David – you certainly take this seriously and that has to be respected.

You partly did what I asked you to do, namely to provide the reasons (preferably fact based ones) behind the various assumptions in your profile – which is very commendable.

It now becomes obvious, however, that these reasons vary to a great extent in terms of how sound they are. To me – I should stress. Others may disagree, of course.

As pointed out by masootz, you can’t use statistics to establish "facts" in a context like this one. If nothing is known about a person, it’s statistically probable (very probable, even) that he or she is right handed. Most people are. But to go from this statistical probability to claiming (or even suggesting) it as "fact" that the person in question is right handed – is clearly a fallacy. *

Nor can you say that eyewitness reports (which contradict each other) or composite sketches (which are notoriously unreliable) can establish what Z looked like specifically (such as the "fact" that his face was oblong) rather than generally. You also include elements (like the beard) from cases which may or may not have involved Z (as Tahoe suggests).

Finally, you seem to suggest that what is generally true (a form of statistics again) of (serial) killers is true for Z – which may be a useful starting point, certainly, but you’re still not dealing with facts.

I would not present assumptions (whether they’re reasonable or not) as facts – which is what most people here seem to criticize you for.

* One could add here that it borders on a form of intellectual dishonesty when one presents statistical probabilities even as mere likelihoods: If I say that it’s likely X is right handed, many will take this to mean that I know something which points in that direction, not that I’m merely citing a statistical probability without having seen a shred of evidence which suggests that X is either right- or left handed.

1. Z drove a car at Berryessa (at least it’s extremely unlikely that he did not). 2. In the USA more people drive Fords than any other car. 3. The most popular car color in the USA is white.

Now, can I reasonably state it as fact that Z drove a white Ford (let’s insert the most popular model at the time for good measure) at Berryessa? Of course not. I can’t even suggest that it’s likely that Z drove such a car, because this implies that I have some reason to think so – rather than just going by sheer stats (which is almost entirely pointless in this context).

Hello. It’s davidfrancis here.

Godspeed to you valleylife, masootz, Tahoe27, and Norse, and thank you for answering my post.

As always, I promise to reply in kind.

1. valleylife’s comment: “David, to my eye your profile of Zodiac emerges as immensely more sensationalist than substantive. Coupled with your remark about aliens I would guess that you write for a tabloid newspaper by profession, the National Enquirer, perhaps, or the like.”

valleylife,

I enjoy your candour. However, for you to say that I’m someone who uses exaggerated or lurid material in order to gain public attention is totally erroneous. What I have done, is provide you and everyone else with substance. What you decide to do with this substance, and/or view it, is totally your prerogative. I’m a big boy, have broad and strong shoulders, and I can handle your and others’ critique. Moreover, I detect a slight hint (on your part) pointing towards my comments being gossip or rubbish. Again, it’s perfectly okay. My toes are strong enough to bear the full force of your evaluation. I’m more inclined to write for the likes of Better Homes and Gardens. There I’m likely to be free from certain jaculations. Furthermore, and if you joined me there, I could always teach you that being a shittah as its place in God’s Kingdom.

Thank you.

2. masootz comment: “to paraphrase inigo montoya – you keep using the word "fact". i do not think it means what you think it means. kidding aside, something being a statistical tendency doesn’t make it a fact. just saying.”

masootz,

Well put, and joke taken. Montoya was a drunkard who lived a life of debauchery and could not even tie his own shoelaces! Is this a fact or a mere statistical tendency? Remember though, he’s a fictional character. What will the fact, opinion or statistic, be based on?

Thank you.

3. Tahoe27’s comment: “As masootz stated, many of your facts are not facts. You are assuming SO many things. No professional profiler would state something as a fact when it is unknown–especially with "alleged" victims. "I believe" will take you far communicating with people in regards to this case. We certainly don’t ask you to tell us your occupation. Many would not necessarily believe you if you told them anyway. That is the nature of a message board. This case brings out too many people who think they know it all and enjoy telling everyone EXACTLY how it is. And THAT is a fact.”

Tahoe27,

Just as you claim “I assume so many things,” how fascinating that the roles can be somewhat reversed. I assume, you assume, we all assume at one stage or another. The nature of message boards revolves around their springboard like characteristics. It facilitates those who intend to play games with undertaking and carrying out their intended scheme. There are hundreds if not thousands of characters out there (presumably here also) who live by this philosophy. Forums are another way of veiling your “true self”. What makes you, me, or any other member immune from this caul? Nothing, nothing at all! Now, I’m not saying I’m playing games, don’t take me wrong, but simply giving everyone a FACT.

Funny that you would mention “too many people who think they know it all and enjoy telling everyone EXACTLY how it is. And THAT is a fact.” Unless you yourself know more than what meets the common eye, why do you feel the necessity to correct someone’s opinion, regardless if factual or not, and go on to manipulate you words to sound as if you harbour an higher intelligence, and knowledge, about the case, than davidfrancis and others. Your capitalisation of EXACTLY and THAT, is a dead set give away.

Thank you.

4. Norse’s comment: “Thanks for the long reply, David – you certainly take this seriously and that has to be respected. You partly did what I asked you to do, namely to provide the reasons (preferably fact based ones) behind the various assumptions in your profile – which is very commendable. It now becomes obvious, however, that these reasons vary to a great extent in terms of how sound they are. To me – I should stress. Others may disagree, of course. As pointed out by masootz, you can’t use statistics to establish "facts" in a context like this one. If nothing is known about a person, it’s statistically probable (very probable, even) that he or she is right handed. Most people are. But to go from this statistical probability to claiming (or even suggesting) it as "fact" that the person in question is right handed – is clearly a fallacy. Nor can you say that eyewitness reports (which contradict each other) or composite sketches (which are notoriously unreliable) can establish what Z looked like specifically (such as the "fact" that his face was oblong) rather than generally. You also include elements (like the beard) from cases which may or may not have involved Z (as Tahoe suggests). Finally, you seem to suggest that what is generally true (a form of statistics again) of (serial) killers is true for Z – which may be a useful starting point, certainly, but you’re still not dealing with facts. I would not present assumptions (whether they’re reasonable or not) as facts – which is what most people here seem to criticize you for. One could add here that it borders on a form of intellectual dishonesty when one presents statistical probabilities even as mere likelihoods: If I say that it’s likely X is right handed, many will take this to mean that I know something which points in that direction, not that I’m merely citing a statistical probability without having seen a shred of evidence which suggests that X is either right- or left handed. 1. Z drove a car at Berryessa (at least it’s extremely unlikely that he did not). 2. In the USA more people drive Fords than any other car. 3. The most popular car color in the USA is white. Now, can I reasonably state it as fact that Z drove a white Ford (let’s insert the most popular model at the time for good measure) at Berryessa? Of course not. I can’t even suggest that it’s likely that Z drove such a car, because this implies that I have some reason to think so – rather than just going by sheer stats (which is almost entirely pointless in this context).

Norse,

Thank you for always being blunt and critical with your replies. It’s a sign of wisdom and maturity.

I find it phenomenally perplexing that a tinny little word (Fact) has been the proponent that accelerated an almost indestructible Hornets nest. To appease your mind, and the mind of others, allow me to enlighten you with a subtle rendition from Flamm’s “Law and Order”:
In his book, Flamm describes how Ronald Regan rode the issues of the 1965 Watts riot and ongoing trouble at Berkeley to win the governorship of California. If the Democrats had been able to spotlight the issue, the legal ramifications for Regan, and his Republican party, would have been astronomical devastating, to the point of Regan never having a single iota of a change of becoming the 40th president of the United States. Flemm says and I quote “Law often questions facts. The fact was simple! The actual or alleged event took place right under the Democrat’s noses, but distinguished itself from legal effect or consequence.”
The part that interests me is “the actual (fact) or alleged event…distinguished itself from legal effect or consequence.” Can we combine “facts” and “allegations”? Please enlighten me as I seem to be embroiled in a world of Confucius.

Fact has a long history of use in the sense of “an allegation or fact” or “something that is believed to be true,” as in this remark by union leader Albert Shanker who stated (when addressing a group of teachers) that “This tract was distributed to thousands of American teachers, but the facts and the reasoning are wrong.” This usage has led to the notion of “incorrect facts,” which causes uncertainties among critics who insist that facts must be true. Correct me if I’m wrong here, but aren’t you a critic who insists facts must be true? Come now, you’re not uncertain like all the others are you?

Before you decide to share that “I border on a form of intellectual dishonesty when I presents statistical probabilities even as mere likelihoods,” I suggest…Go on, get your facts right! I have an abundance of Books like Flemm’s that I’m prepared to, and for a measly amount, express post over to you, wherever you may be.

I too, enjoy starting my replies with praise but then towards the end enjoy a bit of chaff.

Thank you.

Your opinion doesn’t make something factual.

Many people come here with no knowledge of this case. It muddies the waters when you state something as a fact when it’s not. Please refrain from doing so.

Dear members and your fluent pens.. I am taking a deep breath and a leap of faith. This forum is full of a whole range of smart intelligent men and women, who have a myriad of talents to offer, of which I am humbly a current member of and whom I admire. I wish to become a stalling point for the current position we are in on this topic. I believe we should all step back and accept without fear or favor everyone’s comments.. Let me say reading everyone’s comments will make us all the better. I have never been surrounded by so many intellects, it makes me feel like an apprentice serving his time..Never stop the banter nor the intellectual conversation that exudes.. davidfrancis has lots to offer, more than I can imagine, not blowin smoke here, I am not one for that, just don’t want to lose a potential member that has better insight than I ever will. Not that he would be scared off. Just that he might get tired.. Right or wrong this forum needs this guy. There is no right or wrong in a profile , Not until the culprit is in custody. Then we can look back and see. I respect you all, this is about the unravelling of the evil Z., not us..

And I’m no good with confrontation..
So lets move on!
Cheers

Facts are stubborn things.

-glurk

Your opinion doesn’t make something factual.

Many people come here with no knowledge of this case. It muddies the waters when you state something as a fact when it’s not. Please refrain from doing so.

This is SO VERY TRUE & SO VERY IMPORTANT !!! Thank you Tahoe27 for that

Sure, you’re all entitled to express and share your own opinion, as long as you add the "I believe" / "in my opinion"/ "maybe"/ "possibly" etc, when you are theorizing things that is NOT 100% established facts.

In all respect, I hope those in question get Tahoe27s + several other posters and my point?

Correct me if I’m wrong here, but aren’t you a critic who insists facts must be true? Come now, you’re not uncertain like all the others are you?

I’m not sure what your point is. Have people deliberately or innocently confused fact and fiction, fact and allegation, fact and assumption…and so forth…? Yes, of course they have. Is there sometimes a gray area to be considered, is it sometimes hard to know where fact ends and fiction (or assumption, or allegation) begins? Yes! Often. Do set phrases like "the fact is…" or "the fact that…" HAVE to refer to something factual? No, certainly not.

What people refer to here, on this message board, when they speak of “fact” (versus assumption) is plain and clear, though: A “fact” is a thing which is known, which has been proven, which has been demonstrated beyond doubt to exist or be the case. It’s not that complicated. A palm print was found at location A. Zodiac used the misspelling “clews” in letter B. These are FACTS. Zodiac may have been a married, brown eyed guy with low income and issues with his mother – but these are NOT facts.

The point has been made emphatically by now, I think: People don’t mind your assumptions and opinions – what they mind is when you present them as facts.

Example (not factual, quite fictional, in fact):

You say it’s a fact Z was right handed.

People: What do you base that on? You don’t know for a fact that he was right handed.

You: It’s a fact that most people are right handed.

This is a form of sophistry which doesn’t belong in a profile which you present as a serious one – and which you clearly expect others to take seriously.

Facts are stubborn things.

-glurk

Is that true?

Facts are stubborn things.

-glurk

Is that true?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o0V6VPX_E0