Hi-

Got this yesterday and it is actually readable, unlike the usual Z book where someone drones on and on about their father, husband, stepfather or some astronomer with little or no evidence (or sham evidence like "reversed" fingerprints) to make a case. He makes interesting analogies between Charlie Chan at Treasure Island, with it’s "Dr. Zodiac," and the case, as well as digging up an article from 1931 that I had never heard of before. He seems a bit reticent to imagine that the 1931 article may have influenced Z at the time it was published but that is probably due to his bias as to how old Z would have been back then. Not *every* suspect was too young to have read that article as a youth.

I was disappointed that he did not discuss Peek-a-Boo Pennington with regard to the Halloween card but I have not finished reading yet. I sense that he probably feels once again that Z was "too young" and not wealthy enough to have come to Mr. Pennington’s attention but that is also not true across the board.

The author does not profess any expertise or training so far in linguistics or profiling but he does venture into those areas, as well as citing a graphologist’s impressions of Z and giving them credibility. I don’t think he has the chops to go up against a profiler like Richard Walter, who profiles cold cases from across the country and internationally for a living (and has a much different view of who Z was than I am getting so far from Korsgaard).

Mike

Hi-

Got this yesterday and it is actually readable, unlike the usual Z book where someone drones on and on about their father, husband, stepfather or some astronomer with little or no evidence (or sham evidence like "reversed" fingerprints) to make a case. He makes interesting analogies between Charlie Chan at Treasure Island, with it’s "Dr. Zodiac," and the case, as well as digging up an article from 1931 that I had never heard of before. He seems a bit reticent to imagine that the 1931 article may have influenced Z at the time it was published but that is probably due to his bias as to how old Z would have been back then. Not *every* suspect was too young to have read that article as a youth.

I was disappointed that he did not discuss Peek-a-Boo Pennington with regard to the Halloween card but I have not finished reading yet. I sense that he probably feels once again that Z was "too young" and not wealthy enough to have come to Mr. Pennington’s attention but that is also not true across the board.

The author does not profess any expertise or training so far in linguistics or profiling but he does venture into those areas, as well as citing a graphologist’s impressions of Z and giving them credibility. I don’t think he has the chops to go up against a profiler like Richard Walter, who profiles cold cases from across the country and internationally for a living (and has a much different view of who Z was than I am getting so far from Korsgaard).

Mike

Hi-

Got this yesterday and it is actually readable, unlike the usual Z book where someone drones on and on about their father, husband, stepfather or some astronomer with little or no evidence (or sham evidence like "reversed" fingerprints) to make a case. He makes interesting analogies between Charlie Chan at Treasure Island, with it’s "Dr. Zodiac," and the case, as well as digging up an article from 1931 that I had never heard of before. He seems a bit reticent to imagine that the 1931 article may have influenced Z at the time it was published but that is probably due to his bias as to how old Z would have been back then. Not *every* suspect was too young to have read that article as a youth.

I was disappointed that he did not discuss Peek-a-Boo Pennington with regard to the Halloween card but I have not finished reading yet. I sense that he probably feels once again that Z was "too young" and not wealthy enough to have come to Mr. Pennington’s attention but that is also not true across the board.

The author does not profess any expertise or training so far in linguistics or profiling but he does venture into those areas, as well as citing a graphologist’s impressions of Z and giving them credibility. I don’t think he has the chops to go up against a profiler like Richard Walter, who profiles cold cases from across the country and internationally for a living (and has a much different view of who Z was than I am getting so far from Korsgaard).

Mike

I hate to burst your bubble but in the Criminal Profiling Community Richard Walter has been exposed as a liar and a fraud. He is exposed in almost any criminology class of what not to do as a profiler.

"Mr. Walter claimed that he had examined over 5000 cases while employed at the Los Angeles County Medical Examiners Office; that he had testified as an expert in hundreds of criminal trials in both Los Angeles and Michigan. This testimony was entirely false and ultimately amounted to ‘perjury,’ according to the (following) judicial rulings…" "He was not employed by Los Angeles County other than as a lab assistant (certainly not a profiler); he was never employed by Michigan State Universtity; and he had not testified in any cases in Los Angeles as an expert of any kind.)"

The Courts have held that Walter:
Committed Perjury by his assertion that he was a Prison Psychologist
A Psychologist must have a PhD. of which Walter has never had
Committed Perjury by his assertion of publication to peer review journals
Walter had not even submitted a writing to be consider for publication
Was Misleading in his Teaching Experience
Indicated that he was an Adjunct Lecturer which is an academic title that Walter was not qualified to use
Committed Perjury in assertions that he was a qualified Expert Witness
"Walter’s testimony concerning his past qualifications as an expert witness were patently false"

In 1982, Richard Walter was called by the Prosecution to testify in the double homicide trial of Robie J. Drake in Niagara County, New York. At trial, Walter testified to the “sexual perversion” that accounted for a bite-mark relevant to the evidence. Drake was convicted and given a Life Sentence. While in prison, Drake appealed several times and his petitions were dismissed. In 1995, he attempted a new strategy by trying to discredit “the expert”. He complained to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences-Ethics Committee that Walter had misrepresented his credentials and work history. Following a thorough investigation by AAFS, Drake’s complaint was found without foundation.

Undeterred, Drake appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (New York) and made claims that Walter had given perjured testimony at his trial, as well as in other trials, regarding his background and credentials. To make his argument, Drake created a complaint that was later found to reflect misstatements of fact, direct lies, and fabricated testimony from subsequent cases. Although Niagara County Prosecutor’s Office was aware of the appeal, they did not believe that the claims merited a response. They also omitted notifying Walter of the legal action, even though his reputation was in danger if the appeal were to be accepted. Accordingly, without a response from the Niagara County Prosecutor’s Office, The U.S. Court of Appeals accepted Drake’s purported facts as truth. Shockingly, the U.S. Court of Appeals is not required to fact-check. Instead, it was the expected role of the Niagara County Prosecutor’s Office to provide a counter-argument to the appeal.

Without a response from the Prosecutor’s Office, the Court ruled that Walter had given perjured testimony through misrepresented credentials and background. Subsequently, the Court ordered the case remanded by to the Federal District Court for an explanation of why the Niagara County Prosecutor’s Office failed to discover this evidence before trial. It was at this time that Walter had found out about the proceedings. When he contacted the Niagara County Prosecutor’s Office it was explained that he could not appeal because he had “no official standing in the case". The Court had essentially created a “victim without remedy”.

On his own, Richard Walter had to gather the evidence necessary to protect his professional existence. The proofs against all claims made by Drake were painstakingly documented and attested to in depositions. This included past employers, academics and former Niagara County Prosecutor Broderick, who is now a sitting Judge. The Vidocq Society, of which Walter is a member, closely scrutinized the facts and found that he had done no wrong. Fortunately for Walter, State and Federal Agencies had continued to use his services once the counter-evidence was provided to them.

Now that the case is over, Richard Walter can objectively evaluate the situation:

“Although part of professional life is to be wrongfully attacked by criminals, it is very rare that they get this far with a patent deceit. However, here, the diabolical drama became extended because of the failure of ‘good people’ to do their jobs. Needless to say, inasmuch as one cannot sue the U.S. Court of Appeals, it did cost me a great deal of time and money.”

When asked, Walter offered advice for those who may face similar circumstances:

“Be not disheartened with the imperfect world of justice. Except for an intentional harm created through misrepresentation of facts and published on Google, this case represents decent people who tried, sometimes ineffectively, to do the right thing.”

From:

www.forensicreporter.com

In any circle you are in, Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law School, or the accepted field of Behavioral Profiling in a post Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals world, Walter is taught as a Prime Example of a Psuedoexpert. A person who lacks the credentials and abilities that they propose to have. A fraud. Thats the entire legal community. Having a publication write a favorable, "Poor Walter" piece does not change the fact of what he has been proven to be. If It is untrue, why hasnt Walter sued the Professors, the text book publishers, the lecturers, the exam givers on the subject for defamation of character? Because he cant, the truth is the ultimate defense to those claims. Because someone enjoys media success, does not make them a legitimate expert. Katherine Ramsland is on practically any current documentary on cable tv as an expert in serial crime and forensic psychology. What is the bulk of her publishings? Ghosts, Vampires, Werewolves, Witches. Experts arent qualified by magazine articles and documentary appearances or being good in an interview. Its a legal process with strict scrutiny. The entire field of profiling and behavioral evidence analysis is having to fight uphill for scientific recognition because of the sins of those charlatans in the 70s, 80s, early 90s. Thankfully, there are organizations that have taken self policing to a whole new level to expose the bad and set the level high for the good.

Meant You no personal offense by challenging your belief in a profiler; just hate to see good dedicated people respecting "The Great and Powerful Oz" when its really just an imposter behind a curtain

Hi-

There is surely controversy about Walter but you are wrong when you lay it on as thickly as you do. That case happened a long time ago. Police departments from across the country would not consult with a "pseudoexpert" as they did monthly for years and years when Walter was at the Vidocq Society. He also would not be as highly regarded by such people as Ressler, Keppel, Mueller (?) from Austria, and other profilers were he a fraud. Frank Bender was a highly regarded forensic sculptor and he and Walter were thick as thieves. When I met Walter in Philly in 2004 he said that "Frank" would be interested in my evidence and he tried to get him to come to the hotel where we were meeting but he was unable to reach him. Why would someone as highly respected as Bender sully his own reputation by hanging around with a fraud profiler?

More important than all of this is that I had been studying the Z case for six years before I met Walter (of whom I had never heard before approaching the Vidocq Society to ask them to take a look at the Z case). I had heard for those six years that Z was a narcissist, aloof, superior, condescending, needed to write letters to boast about his crimes, etc. Then Walter said told me that Z was a "power-assertive" killer. I was skeptical about profiling at the time because I felt that maybe you could not use interviews with people who were stupid enough to get caught to profile someone who had eluded capture for 35 years (in 2004). But I immediately saw that EVERY SINGLE one of the traits I had heard about for Z was encompassed by that profile. "Power-assertive" was like a blanket term that encompassed all of the traits I had been reading about with respect to Z for years. So forget about focusing on Walter himself and look objectively at what his profile says.

As for this book, I have read many books on the case and this one is one of the few I’d highly recommend. I read his profiling section and was pleasantly surprised to see that he did not call Z a "loser compensating for his feelings of inadequacy." I think that the profile he provides is very close to what Walter said in 2004. I don’t want to give his book away but there are two traits in particular that he focuses on that I believe are crucial ones. He also leaves the door open for Z not being an impoverished individual who could not hold down a job. Walter feels that Z was a wealthy man obsessed with power.

BTW, Brent Turvey has had it in for Walter for years. I’d take anything he says with a huge grain of salt. Is that the source of the page attached above?

Mike

The only published book I can find with the title FALSE TESTIMONY is a crime novel. Surely not the source of the page above? Hopefully, the OP will illuminate.

Incidentally, the OP has a copy of Turvey’s FORENSIC VICTIMOLOGY on (what I presume to be) his bookshelf…

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=3475#p54220

This old Usenet thread illustrates the issues between Turvey and Walter. Walter, coincidentally (?), accused Turvey of being a fraud.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic … sTXxj6w1D4

Hi-

I might add to the Walter discussion that in 1999 he was a second author with Dr. Robert Keppel on an article that was published in a professional journal (Intl Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology) that would have required peer review.

https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/intern … rnal200930

I want to say about the Korsgaard book that while I do not agree with everything he says, I was really impressed by the profiling section of the book, especially considering that he is not a profiler. He talks about sociopathy, pathological narcissism, grandiosity and the need for power and control, which pretty much echo Mr. Walter’s profile of a power-assertive with sociopathic traits. The author even allows for the possibility that Z was not mired in poverty but stops short of saying that he was wealthy.

Mike

Hi-

I can’t find any way whatsoever to contact this author. (I don’t use social media, just email, BTW!) It would be nice if he could get the name of the woman who was with Crow that night so we can get her side.

Mike

Hi-

I can’t find any way whatsoever to contact this author. (I don’t use social media, just email, BTW!) It would be nice if he could get the name of the woman who was with Crow that night so we can get her side.

Mike

Check your PM Mike