There is also this connection:
"While imprisoned in 1979, Berkowitz mailed a book about the Process Church, a devil-worshipping fringe group, to police in North Dakota. In the margins of the book, Berkowitz scrawled “Arliss [sic] Perry. Hunted, Stalked, and Slain. Followed to Calif. Stanford University.”

http://didyouknowfacts.com/satanic-1974 … -unsolved/

I have posted a lot of information about the process church here:

viewtopic.php?f=96&t=2202

Long time no post all….

As someone who has read Maury Terry’s Ultimate Evil cover to cover multiple times, I’ve never believed Zodiac was involved in the Arliss Perry murder. I have no idea if in later years prior to his death, Terry tried to tie Z to that as well, or claim Bill Mentzler was Z, or what….I felt Terry went too far afield and tried to tie everyone to some sort of Satanic Panic and specifically calling Mentzler "Manson II" so as to make him out to be a crime megastar.

I do believe that a satanic cult operated out of NYC, and that a group of people were involved in the shootings and Berk took the fall for all of them while only actually committing two or three (not that it matters he had a hand in each one). We know John Carr had ties to the Dakotas and mysteriously died there and somehow Berk found out about this Arliss Perry case and knew she was from that area….

http://nypost.com/2016/06/23/witness-links-nyc-musician-to-unsolved-church-slaying/

I meant to post this article when i saw it awhile back.

I do believe the Zodiac is responsible for the murder of Arlis Perry in the Stanford Memorial Church in 1974. I believe the Exorcist Letter the same year is no coincidence.
She was killed with an ice pick and ritualistically placed/abused.
(I can also link my suspect to the same building, though not yet at the same time…yet)

I don’t believe the article though. Arlis Perry was a devout Christian and there is no way she would have been willingly a participant in such a ritual.

I haven’t seen anything to convince me of a wider Satanic Cult in The Zodiac or this killing, but keeping an open mind.

Newb here. I believe that Bruce Perry, Arliss’ boyfriend at the time, was not only the last person to see her alive, but he was covered in blood when police officers came to his room to question him the night of her attack. Bruce claimed that the blood was from a nosebleed. Bruce and Arlis had gotten into an argument the night of her murder, evidently over the pressing issue of their car’s tire pressure.

Evidently semen was found on a pillow near Perry’s body. The blood on Bruce was evidently his own. The police tested it and it wasn’t Arlis’ blood (supposedly). The police made Bruce take a polygraph test and he passed; however, polygraph tests are notoriously easy to beat and their effectiveness at gauging innocence or guilt works about as well as flipping a coin.

Now….lab mistakes happen. Given that there have been zero significant leads since 1974, I say Bruce Perry should be a suspect in Arlis’ murder. He was the last person to talk to her; they were involved in an argument before she strangely decided to go to a church late at night; and he had blood all over him when police questioned him shortly after her body was discovered. I can’t account for the semen – it was analyzed and apparently didn’t belong to Bruce but like I said – lab errors can happen. Is it possible that Bruce actually killed her? The *circumstantial* evidence seems to point to Bruce (significantly, there were no other witnesses who could corroborate Bruce’s alibi that he was at home at the time of her murder); while the *forensic* evidence points to someone else. That reminds me of how, in the Zodiac case, circumstantial evidence points to ALA, while forensic evidence rules him out. Weird symmetry, eh?

Lots of good info about Arlis Perry’s murder at this link:

https://www.trace-evidence.com/010/

http://nypost.com/2016/06/23/witness-links-nyc-musician-to-unsolved-church-slaying/

I meant to post this article when i saw it awhile back.

I do believe the Zodiac is responsible for the murder of Arlis Perry in the Stanford Memorial Church in 1974. I believe the Exorcist Letter the same year is no coincidence.
She was killed with an ice pick and ritualistically placed/abused.
(I can also link my suspect to the same building, though not yet at the same time…yet)

I don’t believe the article though. Arlis Perry was a devout Christian and there is no way she would have been willingly a participant in such a ritual.

I haven’t seen anything to convince me of a wider Satanic Cult in The Zodiac or this killing, but keeping an open mind.

Newb here. I believe that Bruce Perry, Arliss’ boyfriend at the time, was not only the last person to see her alive, but he was covered in blood when police officers came to his room to question him the night of her attack. Bruce claimed that the blood was from a nosebleed. Bruce and Arlis had gotten into an argument the night of her murder, evidently over the pressing issue of their car’s tire pressure.

Evidently semen was found on a pillow near Perry’s body. The blood on Bruce was evidently his own. The police tested it and it wasn’t Arlis’ blood (supposedly). The police made Bruce take a polygraph test and he passed; however, polygraph tests are notoriously easy to beat and their effectiveness at gauging innocence or guilt works about as well as flipping a coin.

Now….lab mistakes happen. Given that there have been zero significant leads since 1974, I say Bruce Perry should be a suspect in Arlis’ murder. He was the last person to talk to her; they were involved in an argument before she strangely decided to go to a church late at night; and he had blood all over him when police questioned him shortly after her body was discovered. I can’t account for the semen – it was analyzed and apparently didn’t belong to Bruce but like I said – lab errors can happen. Is it possible that Bruce actually killed her? The *circumstantial* evidence seems to point to Bruce (significantly, there were no other witnesses who could corroborate Bruce’s alibi that he was at home at the time of her murder); while the *forensic* evidence points to someone else. That reminds me of how, in the Zodiac case, circumstantial evidence points to ALA, while forensic evidence rules him out. Weird symmetry, eh?

Lots of good info about Arlis Perry’s murder at this link:

https://www.trace-evidence.com/010/

Welp, I was wrong. It was the security guard.