UKSpycatcher: Wow! An impressive compilation of Z-related info you’ve produced! Had I known you’d created this masterpiece, I’d have suggested that you and Morf select items from zodiackillersite.com, and insert them wherever in your opus. No need to re-invent, O Author of the Wheel!

Dag and Spy:

I don’t see why a combination of your ideas/projects should not be feasible: Use UKS’ work as the basis – or the main bulk, for that matter – of an online book.

The main point of publishing something in a more traditional form (even it is online) is that it might reach a different kind of audience, perhaps show up on the radar of people who do not normally visit websites dedicated to true crime (or the like).

What I personally would mainly look for in such a work would be, in a word, objectivity: Stick to the known facts of the case. Then present the main theories (because these make interesting reading and all of them have some merit, one way or the other) about who Z was – but do so, again, objectively.

Such a work should not be a proponent of any particular theory, in my opinion – there is plenty of that around as it is.

An outline of the Z case – the victims, the crimes, the LE representatives, and the many theories and theorists – would be a valuable resource if it remains detached and doesn’t:

a) lean in any particular direction, or

b) attack any theory too savagely. Criticism, not bloodshed – if you know what I mean. Mike Butterfield, among others, has done excellent work debunking many theories and pointing out factual errors in the works of Z theorists (Graysmith not least) but his style – this just as an example – would not be suited to a work of this kind, because it’s too polemic.

Graysmith has to feature in a book like this – because whether one likes it or not he has become part and parcel of the case itself – and the flaws in his works should be pointed out clearly and coolly, so that people who have only seen the Fincher movie (and the great majority of anyone who even knows who Z was today, will have no knowledge beyond this movie) can have certain misconceptions corrected, etc.

Anyway, rambling on again – point being that an online publication is a good idea, IMO, and that the pair of you could pool resources to make this happen.

N.

Nose: Had I been aware of UKSpycatcher’s most excellent work, I’d not have suggested a "Group Project." UKS has, single-handedly, accomplished what I’d only outlined. Further, my computer non-skills would only detract from SKL’s opus. Further, I specialized, so to speak, on the Bates case; I’m aware of the "official" Zodiac killings, of course, but have not studied them in depth.
As I’ve said, there are numerous highly intelligent, computer-savvy individuals in this Forum. UKS’s site can stand alone, or serve as a template for a more extensive compilation. My suggestion that this Forum undertake a Group Project was just that: a suggestion. If it takes wing and flies, great; if not, UKS’s work will certainly suffice.

Whilst I think this is a brilliant idea, I’m surprised I’ve got 4 pages through the post and no-one has yet mentioned the spectre of ‘copyright’. What I mean by that is the tendency of certain people within the Z community to be highly protective of their original research. Then of course there’s the whole issue of disputes that will undoubtedly arise when more than one person claims they were the originator of this or that theory.
I am quite familiar with copyright law in the UK (and I assume the rest of Europe/US/western world is very similar) and I know that simply an idea is not enough, the idea has to have been created in some form (eg a book, website, blog etc …. easier and easier these days to do, and certainly done many times over with many z theories). Don’t get me wrong, I would absolutely love to see this forum produce such a work, I just don’t see it happening without one or more of the Z traditional heavy-hitters putting a real spanner in the works at some point. Sure, there’s a hell of a lot of great, original research here but some of the cornerstone progress over the last 50 years has long-since been claimed by people who are outside of this group.
Does that not worry anyone else?

I’m not sure I understand precisely what you mean, jamesmsv.

The way I imagine this sort of publication, it would consist of a main part which is, effectively, a presentation of the known facts of the Z case (victims, crime scenes, jurisdictions, investigators, police reports, recorded evidence, witnesses…and more), none of which is copyrighted.

Then there’s the part where the most well-known Z theories are presented and criticized. Here there may be copyright issues involved when it comes to the "presentation" part, but I don’t see this as hugely problematic: You’re allowed to quote someone’s work rather extensively if this is done for academic/critical purposes. And some of the more prevailing Z theories don’t have an author, i.e. nobody can legitimately claim intellectual ownership to them in the first place.

As for the basic idea itself – a comprehensive, yet condensed presentation of the case and the most common/popular/widespread theories – being vulnerable to accusations of…well, plagiarism? I don’t know about that – to my knowledge no such presentation exists in precisely this form, and you can’t claim intellectual ownership of a concept this basic/general anyway, can you?

Well stated, Norse. I appreciate the topic being raised – however, I was envisioning the publication to contain the known details — the facts — in one consolidated place, well-organized and presented. Not sure that theories necessarily find their way here — but if so, I can see how those might require meticulous sourcing. Until the happy day when there is a verdict on the Z matter, I believe the facts are all we really have to pour over.

Got to thinking… . (Don’t say I didn’t warn you!) All the members of zodiackillersite.com and related sites have, just by their membership, performed a valuable service. We have kept Zodiac in the public eye, and reminded LE that murder has no statute of limitations, for nearly half a century. Given today’s extended life spans, it is entirely possible that Z remains vertical. If he is ever apprehended, and haled before the bar of justice, it will be because we refused to let him go gently into the night.

Well stated, Norse. I appreciate the topic being raised – however, I was envisioning the publication to contain the known details — the facts — in one consolidated place, well-organized and presented. Not sure that theories necessarily find their way here — but if so, I can see how those might require meticulous sourcing. Until the happy day when there is a verdict on the Z matter, I believe the facts are all we really have to pour over.

To Norse, I concur that plagiarism is a more accurate term to be discussing here, and this would largely be addressed if we were critiquing the research done by others rather than simply including details in the project. Until now I had assumed that the project in question would need to include the most robust theories or dead ends in at least partial form – I find it hard to imagine a comprehensive summary not including, for example, the work done on Radians (as per Gareth Penn’s book) or Ted Kaczynski (as per Doug Oswell’s book). If it’s only a collation of the known facts and official documents that we’re after then surely the forums already in existence cover that base and more?
However, I can see how a critique of the theories might not fit into the mandate, which circles us back round to how we could include other people’s original research in a way that wouldn’t constitute plagiarism or other type of theft. Aside from the books mentioned, imagine how we’d feel if all the money and time put in (especially by Morf – I’ve given a small amount and I’m sure I’m not alone, but I bet he’s invested a lot by anyone’s measure over the years) to someone like Ross Sullivan ended up in a book released by zk.com….. I am also well-aware that even bonafide claims of copyright theft rarely even see a courtroom but there is an issue of honour here that I’m sure we would all want the right people to be credited with their work regardless of any legal standpoint.
It’s getting more screentime than I thought it would need really, I doubt it’s a big problem – certainly the opportunities to reference or build upon other people’s work vastly outnumber the ways in which we could be accused of stealing, but nevertheless the issue remains. Definitely a topic for the back burner until there is a solid mandate to work from and a clearer indication of whether theories are going to form part of the overall project (anyone fancy the job of Chief Bibliographer?)

as far as plagiarism/copyright you’re almost always fine if you thoroughly source your references. as norse said, you can quote extensively and paraphrase to your heart’s content as long as you attribute the ideas to their respective authors/creators.

I don’t understand what this idea is. A zodiac book?

Graysmith’s Zodiac already says everything about the Zodiac. So does Mike’s This Is The Zodiac Speaking. If those contains too much BS for you, then Jake Wark’s case summary just says what happened and when.

They already made a documentary film on the amateur Zodiac investigators of ZK.com and their theories. If you wanted a book on such theories, how and who decides which ones have merit?

I don’t see what is left to be said about the Zodiac, unless it’s every single piece of minutiae that one can possibly speculate on, and that is filling up ten thousand pages and counting on internet message boards, to try to condense that in some form of a book would be impossible.

The way I see it, if Guys like Gary Stewart can write a Z book, anybody can. I like the idea of a Zodiac reference book. What’s the end result though?

To profit from it? To offer it for free?

To self publish? To find a publisher to publish it?

I hate to sound negative, but with so many people involved, I would be worried about in-fighting, hurt feelings, etc, and then if there is money involved, that makes for a whole new set of potential problems.

Also, a monthly magazine may work too with different ideas and articles, sort of like the Z magazine, ‘Inches & Radians’, that sells their magazine via a one year subscription. I’d be shocked if they have more than a handful of subscriptions however.

The one thing I hope we can all agree upon is that getting the Zodiac story out there to new generations can be only good for the case, and who knows, maybe would lead to new clues.

One thing I have been planning for a while, but time has always been an issue, is running a weekly, or monthly zodiac radio show. I actually set up a radio show on blogtalkradio, but never took it further. I think radio is another great way to get the zodiac case in the limelight. Weekly guests, topics, discussions, etc would be cool.
Speaking of which, I am going to be taking part in a couple of Zodiac radio shows over the next month or two, I will give details when I get them

I hate to sound negative, but with so many people involved, I would be worried about in-fighting, hurt feelings, etc, and then if there is money involved, that makes for a whole new set of potential problems.

This is a very real possibility, no doubt.

Realistically, any sort of group effort, involving contributions from multiple people, will be impossible if there’s a tendency of any kind involved – the project would have to be 100% neutral for this to work.

I doubt you’ll find two people on here who are in complete agreement over every aspect of the Z case. I can agree with nine points out of ten someone makes – and yet, on that ONE point, we disagree completely, even to the extent that there isn’t any common ground whatsoever.

The presentation of theories, suspects and possible victims would have to be done in a pro/con format, I think:

Why do people think Bates was a Z victim?
Why do people think Bates was NOT a Z victim?

Why do people think NN is a good suspect?
Why do others think he is NOT a good suspect.

And so on.

The above has some merit, to my thinking: It could be a very useful resource for people who are new to the case. It wouldn’t be anything radically new – in fact you could rightly say that a site like this one contains precisely this sort of pro/con information – but to have it in condensed form would nevertheless be very handy.

Plus, there’s something to be said for reaching out to possible interested parties who simply never frequent sites like this. It’s just as you say – the idea is to keep the case alive, get the story out: The more ways, the more formats, the better – as long as it’s good, solid, unbiased presentations which enable people to do their own thinking on the basis of facts.

Well, I don’t want to be a nay-sayer, I just feel that anybody that’s interested in Zodiac can simply find this site, or several like it, on the net and learn about the case for free. At the same time,I could see a handful of people that never join a site and don’t research on the net, but it can’t be many.

Like I said, if Gary Stewart can write a Z book full of hog wash, and get the press & media attention he has received, then anybody else should be able to.

Well, I don’t want to be a nay-sayer, I just feel that anybody that’s interested in Zodiac can simply find this site, or several like it, on the net and learn about the case for free. At the same time,I could see a handful of people that never join a site and don’t research on the net, but it can’t be many.

Like I said, if Gary Stewart can write a Z book full of hog wash, and get the press & media attention he has received, then anybody else should be able to.

Unfortunately Morf13 the only people who have sold books recently, or made egregious claims, are always the people who illicit the biggest response. This is unfortunately how the world works, sensationalism sells, not cold hard truth. The most publicized recent claims of Gary Stewart, Lyndon Lafferty, Deborah Perez, Corey Starliper etc are examples of misguided individuals with one agenda, 15 minutes or more of fame and money, and invariably are blinkered to reason, even when presented with the truth. Something they are clearly not interested in. We are all to blame. Take a thread on this site as a point in fact. In the ‘Introduce Yourself’ section on this site, one man has elicited more responses than any other individual to date, David Gold and how has he done this, by spouting out misguided, unfounded and utterly contemptuous rubbish, that quite frankly does not deserve a response, but the opposite happens, he gets all the attention he craves. This is exactly how the above characters in our Zodiac mystery get all their attention also, grinding out complete drivel, that unfortunately evokes an unmerited response. The fact of the matter is the widely known facts of this case are nearly half a century old, and cold hard facts don’t sell. On the other hand the garbage load of old festering nonsense that these utterly ludicrous individuals spout out, unfortunately sells, and I’m afraid that’s life.

I remember the radio show you appeared on: The man who investigates the Zodiac crimes with an open mind, versus the utterly ridiculous claims of Thomas Horan, clearly an intelligent man, but one who started by implicating Hal Snook, moved on to a San Francisco reporter, then brought Robert Graysmith into the conspiracy. He should of added Frank Lee Morris, Earl Van Best and DB Cooper into the equation, before he gets usurped by David Gold. The radio host should have told Thomas Horan to shut his trap for a moment and let you get a word in edgeways, but unfortunately every minute, his conniving mind was looking for more individuals to drag into his every increasing conspiracy theory. I bet even the radio host wasn’t safe from suspicion and was having his pockets searched, while he was falling asleep under the incessant barrage of ramblings inflicted upon him by Thomas Horan. That is how he was chosen for the show, the voice of reason versus the voice of unreason, nothing more. The only sad thing about the whole charade, was when listeners tuned in, they got to hear less about the Zodiac case and more about the sad, pathetic, banal, unsubstantiated claims of Thomas Horan, and the saddest thing of all, this man is extremely intelligent, but his intelligence was never going to be enough to get him noticed.