I don’t think this holds up, logically. If Z was not guilty of the CJB crime, he had multiple reasons to still claim it:

1. It would be consistent with his assertions (perhaps lies) about having more victims.
2. It would show indifference = power as you stated
3. It would be the ultimate misdirection, because any evidence LE had regarding the CJB case would point away from Z, if he was not involved.

I think it’s odd that he would select CJB murder to claim considering there are so many others he could have claimed as his.

He also picks a murder that still remains unsolved after 50 years.

He didn’t "pick" it… LE made what they thought was a connection between Z and the CJB case. With credit for the CJB murder being offered to Z on a proverbial silver platter, he accepted.

There is plenty of evidence that links him to Riverside. He claimed 7 before the connection. 5 are confirmed. Of the other 2, 1 might be Bates. So his claim that "there are a hell of a lot more down there" is a lie. 1 extra can’t be considered "hell of a lot more." It’s pretty clear he is attempting to downplay the connection.

If he really wasn’t connected to the CJB murder and he simply wanted to take credit, he would have taken a much more menacing tone about it all.

Zodiac never claimed to have murdered Cheri Jo Bates.

Zodiac never claimed to have murdered Cheri Jo Bates.

However he paid respect to the authorities regarding his Riverside activities..which came after a newspaper article that tied Z with CJB’s death..

QT

He didn’t "pick" it… LE made what they thought was a connection between Z and the CJB case. With credit for the CJB murder being offered to Z on a proverbial silver platter, he accepted.

Bingo.

What makes Riverside stand out is that it wasn’t simply a loose "claim" on his part. It was a connection embraced by LE themselves. If we assume that he wasn’t responsible for Riverside, it was a great bonus for him – something he could, as you say, accept on a silver platter with no downside whatsoever: They actually believed he did it, they assisted him in boosting his notoriety with no effort on his part required.

If we assume that he was responsible, his confirmation is far more problematic. Why? Because he never acknowledged Riverside prior to March ’71. The most obvious reason for not doing so (for someone who otherwise advertised his kills in no uncertain terms) would be that he didn’t want to be associated with it. He didn’t want his Zodiac brand associated with Riverside. But when the connection is made, he doesn’t mind confirming it – as though it never bothered him in the first place, he just forgot to mention it. Makes sense? Not really.

What makes Riverside stand out is that it wasn’t simply a loose "claim" on his part. It was a connection embraced by LE themselves. If we assume that he wasn’t responsible for Riverside, it was a great bonus for him – something he could, as you say, accept on a silver platter with no downside whatsoever: They actually believed he did it, they assisted him in boosting his notoriety with no effort on his part required.

If we assume that he was responsible, his confirmation is far more problematic. Why? Because he never acknowledged Riverside prior to March ’71. The most obvious reason for not doing so (for someone who otherwise advertised his kills in no uncertain terms) would be that he didn’t want to be associated with it. He didn’t want his Zodiac brand associated with Riverside. But when the connection is made, he doesn’t mind confirming it – as though it never bothered him in the first place, he just forgot to mention it. Makes sense? Not really.

Some possible reasons Z may not have immediately claimed CJB:

1. One could argue that he did, with the confession letters. He just wasn’t Z yet.
2. LE tied Z to CJB to the Zodiac cases not by crime evidence, but by the writings. So, if Z was only the CJB letter writer but not the actual killer, he perhaps didn’t claim her as a Z victim because he himself hadn’t started killing until 12/20/1968 at LHR. So… he hadn’t actually "earned" that one.
3. If Z killed Cheri, he may have still been concerned about evidence, witnesses, or weak alibi with that crime, and wanted to distance his Z activities with it, for reasons of his own safety. Better to be convicted of one crime rather than be caught and convicted of serial killings, which would’ve been a death sentence (unless Z was Ross Sullivan, who had his insanity "Get Out Of The Gas Chamber Free" card in his back pocket.) Once LE has publicly made the connection, it’s too late. If Z then denies it he basically confirms it and looks weak in the process. Best to vaguely claim it ("Riverside activities" could be argued by his lawyer, at some future trial, as not meaning what we think it does.)
4. As you say, it could be that the Z persona didn’t include previous (or practice) killings. Or, it might’ve looked odd to claim a 4-year old cold case. The implication then would’ve been that he had been non-active between 10/30/66 and LHR, and of course investigators would’ve pondered why. If he was incarcerated or hospitalized during that time, it might have been too big a clue to provide LE.

– 12/20/68 Z uses a .22 at LHR
– 7/4/69 Z uses a 9mm Luger at BRS
– 9/27/69 Z has what Bryan described as a .45, in addition to his knife
– 10/11/69 Z uses a 9mm Browning in PH

So, Z is armed and stalking. If LE picks him up, either before or after committing a murder, there is nothing to tie him to previous Z crimes because he has different weapons each time. Even at LB, when he has the costume, if he’s picked up before, during, or after the stabbing, he can still claim in court that, while he was pretending to be the infamous Zodiac, he’s not responsible for the other Z crimes because the MO is so different. He only becomes vulnerable when he writes on the car door – at that moment, he is in public and identifying himself as Z (based on handwriting analysis matching.) But once he’s out of there and the costume and weapons safely hidden or gone, he’s in the clear again.

My point is this. He’s out there preparing and committing murders, but not tying them together under the Z umbrella, with his letters, until he feels it’s safe to do so. Perhaps he did kill others, but was concerned he may have left evidence or witnesses… he simply doesn’t then claim that one. And once he uses a weapon in a Z crime, he gets a new one.

It’s possible that he didn’t claim CJB for that reason – there were people who suspected him, and there was too much evidence left behind. It just wasn’t a safe one to tie to the others. And yes, I know, PH was not at all safe either, and his claiming it by mailing in the shirt pieces was by far the boldest thing Z ever did, but then he quit for good. Sort of like the Grand Finale at a fireworks show.

Zodiac never claimed to have murdered Cheri Jo Bates.

However he paid respect to the authorities regarding his Riverside activities..which came after a newspaper article that tied Z with CJB’s death..

QT

With all other murders, he was very discriptive about what he had done. He wanted to prove he did it.

If have 5 years or so, he had confidence they wouldn’t tie him to Cheri’s death, why not offer something more to prove it? He did not do this. Only acknowledged "activities"…there is NEVER a claim to have killed Cheri Jo Bates.

With all other murders, he was very discriptive about what he had done. He wanted to prove he did it.

If have 5 years or so, he had confidence they wouldn’t tie him to Cheri’s death, why not offer something more to prove it? He did not do this. Only acknowledged "activities"…there is NEVER a claim to have killed Cheri Jo Bates.

The CJB confession letters are also very descriptive, and go into detail regarding the disabling of the car and leading her to her death. If that writer was the killer, and Z, it would’ve been redundant (and possibly dangerous) to claim it again, but under a different persona, years later. I think your comment about Z being very descriptive about what he’d done draws a strong parallel to the CJB case.

So, if Z was the CJB writer and killer, what you’re basically asking is, why didn’t he claim it a second time, with more specifics than the vague "Riverside activities" comment. I think the best answer might be, why be redundant and dwell on ancient history when he was committing fresh crimes to brag about?

He NEVER claimed to attack Hartnell and murder Shepard. Must have been another copycat!

Is the implication that he needs to write a letter and specify that he killed CJB to be taken seriously as a suspect?

It would make perfect sense that if he was connected to the Riverside murder, he wouldn’t want to just come out and direct the investigation towards evidence that would lead to him.

Rather, he would be inclined to misdirect the investigation.

If guilty of the CJB crime.
1) Stay silent = show weakness
2) Deny responsibility = show weakness
3) Claim responsibility and misdirect = show indifference = power

You are absolutely correct PA. He never claimed Lake Berryessa.

And he never claimed Cheri Jo. He claimed Kathleen Johns. See how that works.

Of course he made the innuendo he was involved with something in Riverside, but it is everyone else who is assuming it was the murder of Cheri Jo Bates. Even saying "only finding the easy oneS" should tell us something….he was full of it.

Whether he killed her or not, he never claimed her as his victim…no matter how anyone wants to spin it.

You are absolutely correct PA. He never claimed Lake Berryessa.

He did, on the car door.

And he never claimed Cheri Jo.

He may have, in his "pre-Z" days. But you are right, as Z, he didn’t specifically identify her as one of his murder victims. Good point.

Of course he made the innuendo he was involved with something in Riverside, but it is everyone else who is assuming it was the murder of Cheri Jo Bates. Even saying "only finding the easy oneS" should tell us something….he was full of it.

This is also a good point, for those of us who think the killer and writer in the CJB case may have been different people. It was the writer LE tied to Z… not necessarily the killer.

You are correct Marshall. The car door would be a claim. I was thinking along the lines of his letter writing…I stand corrected. Still don’t think it was THE Zodiac, but for those who do–that is a valid point.

You are correct Marshall. The car door would be a claim. I was thinking along the lines of his letter writing…I stand corrected. Still don’t think it was THE Zodiac, but for those who do–that is a valid point.

Doesn’t the Halloween card "By Knife" tie Z’s writings to the car door claim?

I don’t think the HC card was Zodiac either. I’ll leave it at that.

Still don’t think it was THE Zodiac.

I don’t think the HC card was Zodiac either. I’ll leave it at that.

And that’s the issue, it doesn’t matter what you think. Just because YOU believe in a self created and contrived theory, is not a good reason for everyone to ignore legitimate evidence.

If you have a Thomas Horan like theory that all the evidence in this case is from multiple copy cat killers / letter writers, than you should create a thread, give us the details so we can point out all the flaws.

Most of us take a very orthodox approach with the evidence in this case, meaning we accept the evidence as it is. The hoax type theory’s always have little to nothing backing them up. Most of these conspiracies arise from nothing more than paranoid delusions.