Chappie, I’m saying that this particular letter (mid-November, ’68) MIGHT contain such details as flight information or even a simple request to stay at Bob’s place for a couple weeks in December. But I am not optimistic the letter’s contents will ever be revealed.

one Dick cannot be on two Continents simultaneously no matter how hard he tries

And then I giggled like a little girl.

UP2 I must ask you to remain serious please! We have established that the man of whom we speak is like no other mortal, this Dick is one of a kind! Richard is able to commit double homicide on a quiet Benicia road in California, at the same time as posting mail from Albany, NY to Mr Loomis before moving on to convince elements of the press that he’s over in Ireland reporting on the Riots and Protests.

I believe there may be a possibility that Richard Gaikowski had discovered how to teleport oneself from one State to another, and after a bit of practise to build confidence, started teleporting between Continents. I think you’ll agree, this is the most logical explanation.

Are there any confirmed Albany letters from November 15, 1968 until the end of December, 1968?

Depends who you are asking I suppose. Ask Bob Loomis who knew Gaikowski as a colleague and friend, and he’ll tell you yes he has letter’s sent to himself in December, postmarked Albany, NY and sent by one Richard Gaikowski to himself. But other’s will tell you, as they have told me that Loomis is mistaken, some even say outrite lying. Voigt even told me once, in the chat-room of his own website with only 3 or 4 users present, that Loomis had, since the making and airing of ‘Mysteryquest – San Francisco Slaughter’ recanted these claims of being in possession of letters from Gaik from Albany in Dec of 68. But to be fair to Tom, he has since withdrawn that claim, ever since I asked him to repeat it here on this board for all to see.

PS. I fully expect to be arrested by the forum police for this comment, :-/ but it’s not an attack directed at Tom personally, nor is there the slightest bit of malicious intent behind it. It is simply the truth as to a claim he once made, and if printing the truth about something is considered offensive in nature, then i’ll happily remove the post myself.

WC, do me a favor. Go to the search function and type in Loomis as the key word to search and then put yourself in as the author. You will see that you have made 18 posts out of the 78 posts in this thread about Bob Loomis and the letters Gaik mailed to him. That works out to 23% of the posts in this thread where you have repeated yourself, gotten snarky and sarcastic over the issue of the letters Loomis received. Then you go on to dare the moderators to reprimand you for speaking the truth.

It is not your opinion that you get reprimanded for, it is your habit of driving a subject into the ground, posting over and over on roughly the same subject. I do not think that anyone on this forum didn’t understand you the first 17 times you stated your opinion, we are just not that dumb, and there are more than a few people that are tired of being talked down to by you at this forum. Maybe you should give yourself another one of those self-imposed timeouts.

Gotta agree with Seagull…..beating a dead horse seems to be a good term to use here. Repeated posts, or ‘flaming’ them over and over is not welcomed. I understand you may be unhappy with lack of a response,etc, but please be patient. If you are warned about what to do or not do regarding posts, etc, you are not being targeted or ridiculed. Please, just try and follow protocol
Thanks

And, about 4 Months ago, I was in the chat room of a well know web site dedicated to this subject, and the owner of that web site stated to me that Bob Loomis had now recanted his original claims and letters as evidence. Being Highly skeptical I asked the person to confirm "Are you stating as a fact, on the record, that Bob Loomis has now recanted his claims, and the letters as evidence, and changed his story?" I didn’t get a reply to this question dispite asking several times. The fact is, Bob Loomis hasn’t recanted anything he stated. The web site’s owner then, after I refused to stop asking him to confirm his statement, simply angrily declared ‘Bob Loomis is not credable" before, once again, banning me from the chat room because I had dared to ask questions that challenged what he was claiming.

I received an email from Tom Voigt asking me to post a response to WC’s above statement. Tom does not have an account here and is unable to address this matter himself.

As far as anyone knows, Gaikowski’s DNA has never been compared to the Zodiac’s DNA. Where is this user getting its info, and why is it allowed
to post these claims unchallenged?

I never said that in chat or elsewhere, nor has Loomis ever recanted anything to my knowledge…although he has changed a couple of versions of
his story from what he told me in 2008 to what he told MysteryQuest a year later. That’s a different matter.

As far as the letters are concerned, there is nothing to recant; we have the postmark information as provided by Loomis years ago.

Prior to a letter from Gaikowski postmarked England, Feb. 16, 1969, Gaikowski had sent Loomis a series of letters from Albany. However, there is no
way to know exactly when they were sent, as Loomis did not date them or save the envelopes.

http://zodiackiller.fr.yuku.com/topic/3 … Y6BqrWThXw

On MysteryQuest, Loomis was shown examining the letters and claiming they "seem to indicate" Gaikowski was in Albany, NY at the time of the Lake
Herman Road killings, yet Loomis subsequently admitted it was nothing but an assumption since none of those letters were dated.

All existing evidence (postmarked letters, news articles, etc) place Gaikowski in Europe no earlier than 1969.

As far as the spelling of "GYKE" in the cipher, there are examples of Gaikowski spelling his last name Guyk, Gike, and Gaik. Therefore the odds
favor him spelling it GYKE at some point, even if he wasn’t the Zodiac. Of course, even if I find an example of him spelling it "GYKE," trolls
who intentionally post misinformation will simply erroneously claim it is insignificant due to Gaikowski being in Hong Kong on Oct. 11, 1969.

I’ll reply once and state this once only for the record. A user at the site’s chatroom, with the screen name Rehab (Who i was subsequently informed was Tom Voigt), categorically stated to me that Bob Loomis had now recanted his claims. I have no cause or reason to lie, nor would I waste my time doing so. I accept that Tom states that it is only ‘to the best of his knowledge’, but I can assure you this was the statement he made to me in his Website’s chat area. There was a third party present in the chat room when this statement was made, and I will ask that person if they recall this statement being made.

As for Gyke vs Gaik and the odds of him spelling it Gyke at some point, I simply pointed out that, as far as we know, Gaikowski did spell it Gaik, but no evidence exists of him using GYKE, and used Bob Loomis as a point of reference. I find it very interesting that Tom here is perfectly willing to state ‘Therefore the odds favor him spelling it Gyke at some point’, yet when I made a reference to Larry Kane and the probability of him knowing Donna Lass due to her employment at Letterman, then her employment move to The Sahara Casino Hotel, and that Kane also happens to leave S.F around that time, and has employment in that very building also, Mr Voigt dismissed this as speculation and theory and demanded ‘Where is the evidence for that?’

And finally, in a conversation again relating to Lawrence Kane, Tom asked "Where is the evidence? Is there evidence to put Kane on or near Lake Herman Road on Dec 20?" I replied that ‘No, there is no evidence to place Kane on Lake Herman Rd on Dec 20, if there were, we wouldn’t be having this conversation because Zodiac would have been caught, if we could place Kane, or any other suspect, at Lake Herman Rd that night. But, it seems that I have discovered a new document in the FBI Files that would make me reconsider my stance on that last point. So, for Tom’s attention, and in answer to his question about any evidence for Kane being at or near the crime scene’s, I respectfully divert his attention to Exhibit A……

"Investigation has placed Kane in the Locales where several of the Zodiac’s victims either lived, or were killed." The first page of this report states that Vallejo PD had re-opened their Zodiac cold case, in 1991, based on this new evidence regarding Kane.

Yes, here is one post from months ago covering the exact, same subject, with some off=topic Kane information thrown in, IF the subject of the post is really Gaikowski and not Tom Voigt.

If you take into account Richard’s statements regarding his travels to Europe and factor in his letters to his friend in California, it means Gaikowski was in Europe for a period of at least 85 days.

As I understand it the idea is that Gaikowski deliberately tried to give the impression that he was in Europe earlier than he actually was. And he did so by plagiarizing parts of a piece in The Observer about a protest march in Northern Ireland that took place on New Year’s day in 1969. In reality he didn’t witness this march – such is the implication – he just stole some bits from the Observer piece to give the impression he witnessed the events first hand.

Good. But the date we’re all interested in here isn’t January 1st – it’s December 20th. For obvious reasons. Gaikowski fakes an article in order to give himself an alibi – which is plausible. If you believe there’s any reason to suspect Gaikowski in the first place, that is. But it’s plausible within that context – people do come up with false alibis. The problem here, however, is that plagiarizing this Observer piece doesn’t give Gaikowski an alibi. He needs to be in Belfast (or wherever it was) on December 20th – the possibility of him being there nearly a fortnight later doesn’t clear him of anything.

And yet there has been an immense debate over this plagiarizing business. Writers do it all the time, by the way – steal snippets off other writers, etc. It proves Gaikowski wasn’t a great and original writer (he clearly wasn’t by the looks of it), but not much else. The idea that plagiarizing an article, supposedly to create a false impression of being in Europe on New Year’s day – not on December 20th, I repeat, but on January 1st, nearly a fortnight after LHR – is somehow telling, or even damning…well it just strikes me as plain ridiculous.

And, yes – this thread should be about handwriting samples, sorry!

Looks to me like Richard wanted his European alibi to cover the fall and winter of 1968 too…

"I felt burned out and left The Knickerbocker News at the end of September (1968) and headed for Europe to lick my wounds." — Gaikowski quote in "My Albany Sojourn."

"Narlow also told me (Tom Voigt) that he didn’t actually see Gyke’s passport stamp, but that Gyke used it as an alibi over the phone by claiming he was in Europe at the time of a Zodiac killing." This would be refer, of course, to December, 1968.

Looks to me like Richard wanted his European alibi to cover the fall and winter of 1968 too…

"I felt burned out and left The Knickerbocker News at the end of September (1968) and headed for Europe to lick my wounds." — Gaikowski quote in "My Albany Sojourn."

"Narlow also told me (Tom Voigt) that he didn’t actually see Gyke’s passport stamp, but that Gyke used it as an alibi over the phone by claiming he was in Europe at the time of a Zodiac killing." This would be refer, of course, to December, 1968.

Well, the thing – for me – is this: Gaikowski was supposedly in Europe from, let’s say, early October 1968 – and he remained abroad for several months, certainly past January 1969 (the disputed article in which he plagiarized parts of a piece in The Observer was published around Feb 1st, if memory serves).

Now, he couldn’t prove this – because he had lost his old passport. The latter isn’t surprising – it’s not uncommon NOT to save your old passports, so this isn’t suspicious in itself. But regardless of this – to me it seems as though the "pro Gyke" crowd (for lack of a better term – those who believe Gaikowski is a viable Z suspect) regard the plagiarized article as damning. And this I have a problem with. The way I see it, this article is neither here nor there – and that’s that. The implication seems to be that Gaikowski plagiarized this article as a ruse, as an attempt to establish an alibi for himself: He was seemingly present at a rally (or a march) which took place on New Year’s day 1969 – whereas, in fact, he was not present – he lifted some eyewitness statements from a piece in The Observer to create a false impression of being there in the flesh.

But as a ruse – as a means to establish an alibi for himself – this is a pointless exercise, surely? If he wanted to create a false alibi, why didn’t he write a piece in which he claimed to have interviewed people – in Northern Ireland, or in London, or wherever – around Christmas(s) time 1968? That would have constituted an alibi. If he was in London (or wherever) close to December 20th, he could hardly have been in California killing people. Being in Northern Ireland on New Year’s day, on the other hand, is neither here nor there. It’s not an alibi – so why even bother?

To me, looking at this from what I dare say is an objective point of view, the obvious reason for plagiarizing a piece in The Observer is not to create an "alibi" (again, it’s not an alibi – clearly not), but rather to spice up your own article. It’s lazy journalism – dishonest, even – but it’s a common phenomenon. Writers steal bits and pieces from other writers all the time – it isn’t strikingly suspicious at all.

Here is part of an article (see below) on Ireland, most likely by Richard Gaikowski, that appeared in the Good Times paper. According to my research, Radio Free Derry started broadcasting on January 10th, 1969. But here is where things get problematic — I found no headline or article in The Manchester Guardian mentioning anything about "Red Radio in Derry." If someone wants to check The Times of London, you’re welcome to it. The earliest mention I found in The Guardian concerning Radio Free Derry was an article by John Cunningham on January 13th, 1969.

"Electric Anarchy," Good Times Newspaper — March 5, 1970

by orkney

In January of 1969, the Catholic population of Londonderry, Northern Ireland, drove out the police, erected barricades in the street to keep them out, and declared Free Derry.

Within hours after the barricades were up, Radio Free Derry started broadcasting, informing the people in the 22-square block area what was happening, broadcasting the kind of music never heard over Radio Ulster (the BBC outlet in the province) and laying down heavy political raps. Radio Free Derry even had a man in a house not far from the police station where he broadcast direct reports, via telephone, on the latest moves of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

I was wandering around Europe that winter and happened to be in Derry hanging out with a group of anarchists when the barricades went up. Emmon McCann, a revolutionary socialist, was responsible for putting Radio Free Derry on the air. The transmitter used was an old surplus British Army rig that had been doctored up so it would broadcast on the AM band. A cheap record player was used as a turntable and someone had come up with a microphone that looked like it came with a $20 tape recorder. The whole setup didn’t cost more than $100. The station, we were told later, had a thirty-mile range.

The first thing Emmon announced was "This is Radio Free Derry, broadcasting with 10,000 pounds(about $24,000)worth of equipment which was given to us by an Eastern European country." The next day the Times of London and Manchester Guardian had screaming headlines saying "Red Radio in Derry." We all got a good laugh from this.

The Manchester Guardian? Isn’t that just the old name of the The Guardian? The newspaper chanced its name (dropped the "Manchester" part) in 1959.

Anyway, I’m not sure what it is you find problematic about this, Drew. Do you doubt what Gaikowski is claiming here?

Yes, Norse, I have my doubts if those headlines actually appeared in The Guardian or Times of London. When I have some free time, I’m planning to visit a library that has both papers on microfilm and check for them, but I didn’t find anything in an online archive of Guardian articles. Thanks for the info. regarding the paper’s name change.

Here are just a few observations from journalist Mary Holland while covering the march from Belfast to Derry…the marchers were ambushed by Paisley supporters an hour after they started off…injured marchers included women and children, who were taken to local hospitals, and many people with bloodied faces continued on the march rather than stop. So if Richard was also an eyewitness to some or all of these events, why doesn’t he include any of these dramatic details in his article?