I’m waiting for it….

" Ahh but No No No, he designed the Key deliberately so that GYKE would represent AUSE. Purposely to give a hint was his reason or this." Ooook. So, i’ll write a cipher tomorrow and slap bang in it’s centre I will have ‘ALAN when my name’s ‘Alex’. Then i’ll spend the next 6 months wondering why and what the point of it was?

Anyway I think I will leave it there with Mr Gaaikowski because I think I have over stated my position and it can only go from this to going down the road into argumentative disagreement.

Just to make it clear though, the many that do think or claim Gaik is Z I totally respect that and do not have, nor wan’t, to alienate anyone on here and the posts I have written are one thing and one thing only, the opinion’s held by myself only.

Fine, in the future be careful not to state your opinion as fact. You would not like it if someone were to do the same to your suspect.

Chappie, people can and do lie to cover for friends. Bob Loomis may not necessarily be doing so because he is a bad man; he may be in the same category of individual who burns the proof that their deceased relative was a serial killer, out of shame. Which doesn’t make him any less wrong, of course. I firmly subscribe that anyone who destroys proof of someone being guilty of a crime, whatever their motivation, should do hard time for obstructing justice.

On the passport issue. When Gaikowski was questioned as to whether or not he could show, via his passport, that he had been away from the Bay Area at the time of the killings, he merely replied that he had lost it, and nobody pursued the matter any further (Ken Narlow states as much). Narlow may have been a good cop, but I think he gave Gaikowski short shrift because of Blaine.

Does anybody not remember the confirmed Gaikowski writing? viewtopic.php?f=45&t=370
Look at the y’s and K’s, nothing even remotely close to anything Z ever wrote! A total non-match.
Writing Not a match. No record or account of him owning or shooting guns. Possibly in Europe during the LHR murders. Why is this Guy a suspect again? The lone interesting thing I see about him is that he was in Albany NY for a stretch around the same time as Darlene Ferrin and her Husband

He’s a suspect, morf, because he:

1. Fits the physical description
2. Was (unless one can conclusively prove otherwise) in the area at the time of the killings
3. Possessed a certain skill set that fits that shown by Zodiac

That’s good enough for me. The handwriting is a stumbling block, but I’m not willing to rule anybody out just because of handwriting. Neither am I willing to rule out someone just because their accuser is a kook. In my book, you’re only ruled out if your prints and/or DNA don’t match, or if conclusive proof can be supplied that you were nowhere near the crime scene when the crime was committed.

Fine, in the future be careful not to state your opinion as fact. You would not like it if someone were to do the same to your suspect.

Seagull, your more than welcome to do so. I am not so ego driven that I think Larry Kane is "My Suspect." And I have not stated anything while saying "This is an undisputed fact" anywhere, I simply reiterated what it was that Loomis had said, along with posting Gaik’s article from Ireland. And no offence, but your not impartial when it come’s to Rich Gaik and i’m well aware where your loyalties are in regards to Certain people and their claims.

As I said, I don’t have my own head up my backside to the point where I refuse to see something when it’s in front of me and to be quite Frank, what I have stated is my opinion on Bob Loomis and his claims, and if you are not receptive of my opinion, well, that’s too bad because I never asked anyone to agree with me on it to begin with.

Nach, if you want to believe it is more plausible that Bob Loomis is lying to conspire to conceal Richards love of random murder than it is to believe he has gone public with letters as evidence because he actually cares about his friend being wrongly accused of murder, then that’s your choice. Again, I would acknowledge that yes, people do lie and to cover for a friend, but this is a case of serial murder not theft of a chocolate bar.

Either Loomis has decided that, with nothing positive at all to gain, he’s going to take it upon himself to appear for Richard in his defence and has a bunch of forged evidence to go along with this story that he now has to show to, and convince a tv production team of, Bob has seen the allegations that are being levelled at his friend Gaik and Bob is actually not appearing out of concealed and evil motives and hidden agendas but is actually a good and honest man who’s just trying to say that this accusation is, in his eyes, unjustified and he has evidence to show it.

If you think it’s more plausibl;e that Bob is conspiring to conceal evidence of serial murder with no other result being, should he be found out, himself charged with conspiracy and obstructing, then you can. In my opinion, to suggest someone who isn’t even a family member of Richards is doing that is just preposterous. But like I said, everyone can make their own minds up and I am not looking to convert anyone. I’m just stating my own view.

I mean i’e seen many imply indirectly without actually saying it that Loomis could easily be covering for Richard ‘Zodiac’ GaikowskiI, I can only assume that the people who support the idea have some sort of evidence or event they can show to support Bob’s untrustworthy character? I mean you must obviously have evidence that he wasn’t trustworthy and has a rap sheet or at least an arrest or two for fraud maybe?

Or is this just something being churned out to further an agenda with absolutely nothing to base it on at all?

Chappie you have a website devoted to Kane being the Zodiac, I’d say that qualifies my saying that he is your suspect. Although I will admit that you do seem to be exploring other options lately. That is good!

As for my loyalties, I think if you were to look to see the ratio of posts I make here at Morf’s to the ones I make at other Zodiac forums you would see that I make far more here than anywhere else SINCE Morf began his forums. The other forum has been around much longer so by the numbers it does appear I’ve made more posts there but that is deceptive considering that I started posting there years before Morf began his forum.

I do not have a Zodiac suspect. Many unsolved crimes interest me which is why I have my website on the SRHM, I do not think that the Zodiac committed those murders but felt that they deserved a website because too many people assumed that either the Zodiac or Ted Bundy was the killer simply because there was not much real information relating to them online. Fact is those murders are still unsolved and I want people to know that.

I also write for a Manson blog but that does not mean I think that Bruce Davis or anyone in the Manson Family is the Zodiac, just as it does not mean that I think that Gaik is the Zodiac because I’m a mod at zodiackiller.com. I do appreciate all of the time, money and effort Tom has spent getting police reports and all the other official information he has gotten over the years. I am sure that many others do too even though they may not belong to his forum. He has been at this for close to 20 years and without all his work the rest of us would have a lot less to talk about. His website and forum have been a springboard for most of what is online regarding the Zodiac including this forum.

So, when you post disparaging things in that direction I must object. This is not about you and your perceived slights by one man and anyone associated with him. It about the victims, justice for them and getting it right.

Chappie you have a website devoted to Kane being the Zodiac, I’d say that qualifies my saying that he is your suspect. Although I will admit that you do seem to be exploring other options lately. That is good!

As for my loyalties, I think if you were to look to see the ratio of posts I make here at Morf’s to the ones I make at other Zodiac forums you would see that I make far more here than anywhere else SINCE Morf began his forums. The other forum has been around much longer so by the numbers it does appear I’ve made more posts there but that is deceptive considering that I started posting there years before Morf began his forum.

I do not have a Zodiac suspect. Many unsolved crimes interest me which is why I have my website on the SRHM, I do not think that the Zodiac committed those murders but felt that they deserved a website because too many people assumed that either the Zodiac or Ted Bundy was the killer simply because there was not much real information relating to them online. Fact is those murders are still unsolved and I want people to know that.

I also write for a Manson blog but that does not mean I think that Bruce Davis or anyone in the Manson Family is the Zodiac, just as it does not mean that I think that Gaik is the Zodiac because I’m a mod at zodiackiller.com. I do appreciate all of the time, money and effort Tom has spent getting police reports and all the other official information he has gotten over the years. I am sure that many others do too even though they may not belong to his forum. He has been at this for close to 20 years and without all his work the rest of us would have a lot less to talk about. His website and forum have been a springboard for most of what is online regarding the Zodiac including this forum.

So, when you post disparaging things in that direction I must object. This is not about you and your perceived slights by one man and anyone associated with him. It about the victims, justice for them and getting it right.

I agree with Seagull here, the comments about Seagull’s ‘loyalties’ are stupid. Seagull is a valued and knowledgeable researcher who has helped lots of people on lots of sites with lots of projects. If she is correcting you Welsh,or asking you not to state your own opinions as fact, please don’t resort to hitting below the belt by questioning her ‘loyalties’. I think if you stated your opinions as fact about any suspect from ALA, to Kane, to Rick Marshall, to whomever, I think she would probably speak up again, and rightfully so. Welsh,Please refrain from smart comments like this in the future.

Seagul I have always kept myb options and mind open because I don’t see the logic in just becoming obsessed with one suspect and convincing myself that I cannot be incorrect about this and that’s that. You will notice toward the end of my site regarding Kane that I emphasise the point’s that I would not advise anyone to read what I hae written and decide they agree totally and dismiss all other suspects, and I also emphases that I cannot tell anyone that I know for sure Kane was and is The Zodiac. The page is written and intended to show that I personally believe that after researching and looking at the facts and evidence to the best of my ability without pre-determined ideas and without a biased objective that Lawrence is, just in my opinion, the most likely to be Z by a far. I will again make it absolutely clear that I have no agenda, personal motive or personal interest in who Zodiac was and is. It makes no difference to me if Zodiac was Gaikowski, Kane, or Lyndon Johnson.

To you seagull, I am not wishing or attempting to appear argumentative for it’s own sake but I just think that to try and throw sh** all over the reputation of someone like Bob Loomis (which I have not seen done here at this site by you or anyone I mite add) and have someone claim that Bob is not trustworthy and that he has, in fact, recanted everything he offered as evidence in the form of his letters on that show. I mean that kind of character and reputation smearing campiei is attempted by names I shall not state here because it’s more important to get support for what you are claiming than it is to give a flying care for the person reputation that you just make sh** up about to get people to believe it.

It is no secret or surprise to me that this kind of response only seems to come my way when it’s Gaik that is being questioned as to his potential for Zodiac. I’ve said similar about Allen and others and there never this type of instant outrage laST TIME I gave my opinion on Gaik and I know exactly who is very likely decided to take offence at my opinion about Gaik and have the audacity to state it in the public domain….. Who the hell do I think I am!!!

ul, I hope you know me well enough to know I do not try to offend, and I will tell you one thing…. If I have an opinion on something and it is not offensive in nature, not the intention to attack personal people, and is just a general opinion, then I will state that opinion and if that means a couple of ego’s stamp their feet and throw a tantrum tuff I can’t help that.
If Morf decides, or any of the ‘Impartial’ Mod’s that I am not allowed to hae and give my opinion here publically when I have intended to offend nobody nor state anything direcly abusive then nobody will have to tell me to leave or ban me because I will more than willing leave of my own accord. Again, I will not be dictated too by someone who doesn’t like what I say because it is not in accordance with their own belief. Nothing personal with yourself S, but I was warned for a violation before because I started questioning the claims of others regarding Gaik.

No, you were warned by me because you made a personal attack and we do not allow personal attacks at this forum. Period. It is my job here to moderate and I try to do it fairly. Since I formally gave you a warning you have been very snide with me and I have tried to be pleasant when dealing to you. My patience is wearing thin.

No, you were warned by me because you made a personal attack and we do not allow personal attacks at this forum. Period. It is my job here to moderate and I try to do it fairly. Since I formally gave you a warning you have been very snide with me and I have tried to be pleasant when dealing to you. My patience is wearing thin.

I am talking about a warning from months and months back, the one I received after a 3rd party demanded to come here and question something I had said. I will tell you exactly what happened S if you want the truth about that…

A few comments were made back and fourth and then I asked him does he stand b the comments he made in another public area that Loomis had recanted everything he said and claimed on the show? Then, minute later or so….PM with chat warning. Then, few minutes after this, whole thread removed completely! Now this just vindicates for myself the clear objective in doing that was just to quickly cover up the fact that I was openly asking him to repeat it here and he, along with the Mod, realised that I was pointing out his complete "Make anything up as I see fit’ attitude and many would obviously know this because wouldn’t repeat it when I asked him here. So, we decide I should have a chat warning and the thread is removed and I will tell you the reaction I had from ano5her member in PM who’s name will remain confidential…

"I really don’t see why they removed that thread, you didn’t say anything personal or offensive at all."

No I know that, others knew that, but it was to save the lies other person having to admit he’s full of it. So the feedback in regards to not only that chat violation was "Don’t understand that at all" and the thread removal left me with PM asking why it was removed with me saying nothing offensive.

I had not deliberately or intentionally been in any way offish in tone with you because I don’t hold Grudges against people and the honest truth is, I didn’t think it was you that issued me that chat Vio and that I honestly swear too

Welsh, if you have an opinion, fine share it. If you want to debate the ase,go ahead and do so. This message board is about discussion of the case,and healthy debate is fine. BUT, personal attacks are not okay. Keep the negative comments and posts out of here,PLEASE. We don’t want to see you leave, just play by the rules. Again, Seagull was not being harsh with you because she has an allegiance to Gaikowski,or to Tom Voigt, she was challenging something you stated as a fact when it was simply your opinion.

Back to your points- I don’t condone people like Loomis having their statements challenged without good cause. I don’t know enough about Loomis to know whether his character or statements should be challenged. If people are challenging his statements simply to strengthen the case against Gaikowski that’s a shame and is irresponsible. For me it’s simple, if you think Gaikowski was Zodiac, PROVE IT. People have been trying to do so for years, with no luck.

Anyway, I’m done with this now, I said 3 hours or so ago that this will only lead to arguments and non friendly debate because I know exactly what it’s like when you say anything negative about Richie Gaik. I knew people would take it personally and reply as you did that I should stop stating opinion as fact and that I may one day have someone jumping on Kane’s thread telling me how much they disagree and I may know what it’s then like.

*Removed for containing personal remarks* – Trav.

Morf I said hours back I intended to leave it there after stating my opinion. I am only back here to answer because I apparently stated opinion as fact and was told to think about how I would feel if somebody else come onto Kane’s thread and had an opinion different to my own. I only came back here to answer to a comment. I said hours ago this would be the likely result of me saying what I said and so now I won’t reply here again as was my intention hours ago. I do apologise for going off topic.