Thanks, that needs to be fixed. I shall alert the mobile team.
You don’t have to. Calling Cheri Jo Bates a possible Zodiac victim makes more sense than calling her a definite Zodiac victim.
Thanks, that needs to be fixed. I shall alert the mobile team.
Sorry Tom to clarify and put a halt to the speculation, are you are still classing CJB’s as definitely a Zodiac victim?
Thanks, that needs to be fixed. I shall alert the mobile team.
You don’t have to. Calling Cheri Jo Bates a possible Zodiac victim makes more sense than calling her a definite Zodiac victim.
Can you elaborate on this ?
Thanks, that needs to be fixed. I shall alert the mobile team.
You don’t have to. Calling Cheri Jo Bates a possible Zodiac victim makes more sense than calling her a definite Zodiac victim.
Can you elaborate on this ?
It’s just not right to say that it’s for sure that Zodiac was the one that killed Cheri Jo Bates when we don’t really know. That could change in the future if the police find a DNA match. Until then, I think calling Cheri Jo Bates a possible Zodiac victim would be the appropriate move.
Fair points thanks I appreciate your candour.
She was determined to be a Zodiac victim back in late 1970. Nothing has changed since then except Bud Kelly’s agenda to implicate someone he has a beef with, which has failed multiple times. Paul Stine was also determined to be a Zodiac victim. Should that change because someone within law enforcement had doubts (Roy Conway)? Not to mention Riverside PD and Vallejo PD are indeed working together.
She was determined to be a Zodiac victim back in late 1970. Nothing has changed since then except Bud Kelly’s agenda to implicate someone he has a beef with, which has failed multiple times. Paul Stine was also determined to be a Zodiac victim. Should that change because someone within law enforcement had doubts (Roy Conway)? Not to mention Riverside PD and Vallejo PD are indeed working together.
Stine’s killer provided pieces of his shirt. Zodiac provided no proof that he actually killed CJB. He provided no independent facts. He didn’t give us anything that only the killer would know. So, other than handwriting and Zodiac’s acknowledgment of his "Riverside activity", what evidence links the CJB case to any other Zodiac murder?
Do you think Kathleen Johns was a Zodiac victim? If not, then why accept CJB but reject KJ?
Zodiac provided no proof that he actually killed CJB. He provided no independent facts.
You have access to the 99.9999999% RPD has been holding back? I don’t think so.
Zodiac provided enough to convince RPD he was probably Cheri’s killer, which got confirmed about a year later. Facts are facts whether you like them or not.
Zodiac provided no proof that he actually killed CJB. He provided no independent facts.
You have access to the 99.9999999% RPD has been holding back? I don’t think so.
Zodiac provided enough to convince RPD he was probably Cheri’s killer, which got confirmed about a year later. Facts are facts whether you like them or not.
My question is do you know of any facts that connect Zodiac to the CJB case other than handwriting and Z’s acknowledgement. I didn’t ask you what RPD knows.
I’ll take your snarky, unreasonably hostile response to a legitimate question as a "No."
Zodiac provided no proof that he actually killed CJB. He provided no independent facts.
You have access to the 99.9999999% RPD has been holding back? I don’t think so.
Zodiac provided enough to convince RPD he was probably Cheri’s killer, which got confirmed about a year later. Facts are facts whether you like them or not.
My question is do you know of any facts that connect Zodiac to the CJB case other than handwriting and Z’s acknowledgement. I didn’t ask you what RPD knows.
I’ll take your snarky, unreasonably hostile response to a legitimate question as a "No."
Take it however you want. I guess you know more than the original detectives. By the way, the top Riverside cop was convinced even before the handwriting link was made. But of course what would he know?
Take it however you want. I guess you know more than the original detectives.
That does not answer the question. I’m actually asking what assumptions that the original detectives used to arrive at that conclusion. I’ve worked with and against law enforcement more than enough to know that police officers are hardly infallible. Today, detectives, at least in larger police departments, are actually very well trained. That really was not the case for much of American history. So, if the original detectives relied on bad assumptions, it follows that they would come to bad conclusions. You either know what those assumptions were or you don’t. Do you know?
I’ve worked with and against law enforcement more than enough to know that police officers are hardly infallible.
In late 1970 Bates was determined to be a Zodiac victim and that fact is reflected at my website and in my book.
This discussion is a waste of time.
I’ve worked with and against law enforcement more than enough to know that police officers are hardly infallible.
In late 1970 Bates was determined to be a Zodiac victim and that fact is reflected at my website and in my book.
This discussion is a waste of time.
So, I actually hope she was a Zodiac victim because it would make the case easier to solve. A number of profilers don’t see the CJB case as very similar to the Zodiac case, which is a tool not readily available to detectives in 1970. That is my prime objection. But, like I said, I hope you’re right because Riverside likely has the killer’s DNA. I’m not sure that SFPD, VPD, or Napa does.
Take it however you want. I guess you know more than the original detectives. By the way, the top Riverside cop was convinced even before the handwriting link was made. But of course what would he know?
I’m not trying to be snarky here, just going back to what I learned a long time ago: If A=B and B=C then A=C. Since Riverside was convinced CJB was killed by Bob Barnett, and you say Riverside was also convinced Zodiac killed CJB, are we to conclude Bob Barnett is Zodiac?
Or are we making a selection – Choosing to believe Riverside was right about Zodiac killing CJB, but wrong about Bob Barnett killing CJB?
I’m generalizing, because it has all been discussed and debated to death here, but you potentially have two killers in late ’60s CA who:
– Wrote confessional letters to newspapers
– Used said letters to terrorize the public with threats of more killings
– Communicated with police
– Made phone calls (if we’re to believe the Confession letter)
– Used double-stamps
– Used ruses to entrap victims
– Used similar phrasing and spelling
– Struck close to holidays (Oct. 30th/July 5th)
– Commemorated anniversaries
– Sent 3 copies of the same letter to 3 different recipients; 3 "Bates had to die" letters <–> 3 July 31st Zodiac letters.
