There was nothing sexual except the confession which was more like a work of fiction.

Just so I understand you, by "work of fiction" are you saying that the real killer didn’t write it or that the real killer wrote it but did so to mislead law enforcement?

He worded it for dramatic effect.

I can buy that.

– Wrote confessional letters to newspapers (So did Son of Sam and BTK)
– Used said letters to terrorize the public with threats of more killings (Same as above)

Serial killers engaging in attention-seeking communications with the press is an extraordinarily rare occurrence. Zodiac, Berkowitz and Rader are the only definite cases of the phenomena that easily come to mind.

– Wrote confessional letters to newspapers (So did Son of Sam and BTK)
– Used said letters to terrorize the public with threats of more killings (Same as above)

Serial killers engaging in attention-seeking communications with the press is an extraordinarily rare occurrence. Zodiac, Berkowitz and Rader are the only definite cases of the phenomena that easily come to mind.

Not sure if comparing Z to serial killers is the best approach. Zodiac was much more like a domestic terrorist.

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.

Tom, devil’s advocate here. I come in peace. Firstly, "probably" isn’t entirely convincing. And who and when and how was this "confirmed"?

Also, your website states:

"Zodiac detectives from the San Francisco Bay Area met with investigators handling the Bates case, and the conclusion was made that Zodiac was Cheri’s killer. Eventually, the Zodiac sent a letter to the Los Angeles Times postmarked March 13, 1971, accepting responsibility for the Bates crime. and included details of the murder that had never been revealed by police."

That’s quite a definitive statement, however, there appears to be no conclusion made at the time that Bates’ killer was the Zodiac, only that the letters were written by the Zodiac. Paul Avery learned that the "general consensus" of investigators was that Zodiac "likely had been responsible" for the Riverside writings.

In his 1971 letter, the Zodiac is ambiguous at best in "accepting responsibility" or "confessing" to being Bates’ killer. Also, there appear to be no details revealed by the letter writer that had not already been alluded to or detailed in the unprecedented press coverage.

Now, why would I risk your wrath by arguably splitting hairs? To make the point that all of this may be factual and categorically true, and therefore Bates could reasonably be deemed a "probable" victim, if LE has strong and potentially admissible evidence for each of these points. In other words, evidence or facts that have never been made public, for obvious reasons. Of course, one of the issues is simply the amount of time that has passed. People are no doubt more than a little impatient, wondering why this potential evidence is still not being shared. (Two words address this of course – "Active Investigation")

All the research presented in various books, podcasts, and other dedicated Zodiac sites (our good friend Morf included) refer to Bates as a "possible", not "probable", Zodiac victim, and believe there is not enough to link the Zodiac to the murderer of Bates. It seems to me that the missing link here is that there may well be enough evidence "to convince RPD". It seems clear that you are privy to this evidence. But until LE acknowledge this evidence, or more information is made public, there is and always will continue to be discussion and speculation on the matter. And that can only ever be based on what we are actually currently privy to.

PS – Be kind to me Tom, I’m the devil’s advocate, not the devil himself

Hi,

Profiling in the Bates case suggests that Zodiac, or at least a killer like Zodiac, was not her killer. This reeks much more of an anger killing, as opposed to a power killing. (If you don’t believe in profiling or you don’t care for Richard Walter, then there is nothing to see here.)

Tom, devil’s advocate here. I come in peace. Firstly, "probably" isn’t entirely convincing. And who and when and how was this "confirmed"?

After the Berryessa attack, Riverside Police Chief Kinkead felt Zodiac was probably the Bates killer and that’s why he reached out to the Zodiac detectives in October 1969. In November 1970, there was a joint task-force meeting in Riverside and all jurisdictions compared evidence and info, then concluded Bates was a Zodiac victim. (This meeting was not portrayed factually in the Fincher film, which incorrectly makes it look like Riverside PD never thought Zodiac was involved. That is 100% incorrect — the entire Bates/Zodiac connection was initiated by the Riverside Police Chief.)

Here is a link to Kinkead’s three-page report: https://zodiackiller.com/RiversideMemo1.html

The results of the task-force meeting prompted this: https://zodiackiller.com/CJBDZV1.html

and this: https://zodiackiller.com/DOJ1.html

Profiling in the Bates case suggests that Zodiac, or at least a killer like Zodiac, was not her killer.

I think it’s highly likely the Bates attack did not go as planned. At all. And that’s assuming he even intended to harm her in the first place. Maybe he just wanted to get her to talk to him and things went crazy fast. We don’t know. So that would be a major monkey wrench in any profile.

– Wrote confessional letters to newspapers (So did Son of Sam and BTK)
– Used said letters to terrorize the public with threats of more killings (Same as above)

Serial killers engaging in attention-seeking communications with the press is an extraordinarily rare occurrence. Zodiac, Berkowitz and Rader are the only definite cases of the phenomena that easily come to mind.

Not sure if comparing Z to serial killers is the best approach. Zodiac was much more like a domestic terrorist.

Wikipedia: "A serial killer is typically a person who murders three or more people, usually in service of abnormal psychological gratification"

Good enough for me.

Here is the terrorism recipe. See who it sounds like:

1) Commit an act that will shock and anger society
2) Take credit for the act in communications with the news media
3) Warn of future acts if the agenda is not met
4) Lay out the agenda

There is no rule #4 must be political in nature. That said, Zodiac stated his motive and intent was to humiliate police and keep them busy and distracted, which could be interpreted as somewhat political.

Wikipedia: "A serial killer is typically a person who murders three or more people, usually in service of abnormal psychological gratification"

Good enough for me.

Zodiac consistently wanted attention in his letters and threaten to kill if he didn’t get it. Just like a terrorist, he wanted to make the Bay Area afraid of him. I personally don’t believe Z actually believed he was going to gain slaves in the afterlife or got any pleasure out of the murders. All of the 6 confirmed attacks were quick and simple. He never appeared to enjoy inflicting pain, only that he just wanted to get his victim dead. Nothing appears to me that he got gratification from the attacks.

You can be a serial killer without doing what Zodiac did, but it’s impossible to be a terrorist unless you do everything Zodiac did.

You can be a serial killer without doing what Zodiac did, but it’s impossible to be a terrorist unless you do everything Zodiac did.

It would be fair to describe Zodiac as terroristic but terrorists typically have clear ideological motives. If Zodiac had any then he didn’t make them obvious.

It’s all about coercion.

Old but another news article regarding the issue

https://www.fox23.com/news/trending-now … 743335128/

QT

It would be fair to describe Zodiac as terroristic but terrorists typically have clear ideological motives. If Zodiac had any then he didn’t make them obvious.

Z obviously wanted San Fran to fear his persona. He demanded people of San Fran wear Zodiac ‘butons’ or he would commit more murders. He made various demands in his missives that were backed with detailed bombing threats.
Yes his ideology, if any, is inane but I think he would qualify as a domestic terrorist based on his behaviors.