1. Who is the Zodiac (your favorite/most likely suspect)?
2. Did Zodiac kill Cheri Jo Bates?
3. Did Zodiac send the Albany letters?
4. Is Donna Lass a Zodiac victim?
5. Was that really the Zodiac driving Kathleen Johns around?
6. Can the 340 cipher be solved or is it just gibberish?

1. Ross Sullivan, but it’s most likely to be someone we haven’t yet discovered.
2. Probably
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. Anything can be solved.

1. The suspects touted in the Zodiac case are all based on weak circumstantial evidence, if we can call it that. None are very likely Zodiac candidates.
2. The murder of Cheri Jo Bates is unlikely a Zodiac crime.
3. The Albany letter appears a poor imitation of Zodiac correspondence.
4. The Donna Lass connection is the most likely Zodiac crime outside of the confirmed four crimes. The Pines card ‘sought victim 12’ being the key ingredient tying South Lake Tahoe to San Francisco.
5. The Kathleen Johns abduction is debatable, but certainly plausible.
6. If the 340 cipher is a genuine cipher, it will someday be solved, but unlikely using modern supercomputers. The technique used may require finding the key first- without this, it will be nigh on impossible.

1. The suspects touted in the Zodiac case are all based on weak circumstantial evidence, if we can call it that. None are very likely Zodiac candidates.
2. The murder of Cheri Jo Bates is unlikely a Zodiac crime.
3. The Albany letter appears a poor imitation of Zodiac correspondence.
4. The Donna Lass connection is the most likely Zodiac crime outside of the confirmed four crimes. The Pines card ‘sought victim 12’ being the key ingredient tying South Lake Tahoe to San Francisco.
5. The Kathleen Johns abduction is debatable, but certainly plausible.
6. If the 340 cipher is a genuine cipher, it will someday be solved, but unlikely using modern supercomputers. The technique used may require finding the key first- without this, it will be nigh on impossible.

Thanks for the reply Richard. Seeing you chime in actually prompted a follow up question. Ive been trying to gather the favorite suspects of the most prominent Zodiac researchers. Correct me where I am wrong here:

Robert Graysmith– Arthur Leigh Allen
Tom Voight– Richard Gaikowski
Morf– Robert Sullivan (assuming this is still true…hope he chimes in)
Dave Oranchak– really curious to hear his favorite suspect…cant find any content where he references it
Richard Grinell– Obviously you dont think its any suspect thats been identified

Any other major researchers, who run a site and/or have credibility in the Zodiac community that I am missing?

1. The suspects touted in the Zodiac case are all based on weak circumstantial evidence, if we can call it that. None are very likely Zodiac candidates.
2. The murder of Cheri Jo Bates is unlikely a Zodiac crime.
3. The Albany letter appears a poor imitation of Zodiac correspondence.
4. The Donna Lass connection is the most likely Zodiac crime outside of the confirmed four crimes. The Pines card ‘sought victim 12’ being the key ingredient tying South Lake Tahoe to San Francisco.
5. The Kathleen Johns abduction is debatable, but certainly plausible.
6. If the 340 cipher is a genuine cipher, it will someday be solved, but unlikely using modern supercomputers. The technique used may require finding the key first- without this, it will be nigh on impossible.

Thanks for the reply Richard. Seeing you chime in actually prompted a follow up question. Ive been trying to gather the favorite suspects of the most prominent Zodiac researchers. Correct me where I am wrong here:

Robert Graysmith– Arthur Leigh Allen
Tom Voight– Richard Gaikowski
Morf– Robert Sullivan (assuming this is still true…hope he chimes in)
Dave Oranchak– really curious to hear his favorite suspect…cant find any content where he references it
Richard Grinell– Obviously you dont think its any suspect thats been identified

Any other major researchers, who run a site and/or have credibility in the Zodiac community that I am missing?

Yeah…you missed so and so and, so and so and, so and so to name just a few.

Soze

Morf -Ross Sullivan.
I may stand corrected but I believe David Oranchak, Michael Butterfield and Michael Cole are pretty much neutral. This usually helps when creating an article- not placing your bias into say Presidio Heights and the eyewitness identification.
Mike Rodelli favours Kjell Qvale. Kevin Robert Brooks favours Donald Lee Bujok.
You would hope that no court in the land would even entertain a criminal prosecution on any of the nominated suspects, based on the ‘evidence’ touted, yet I have seen multiple cases in the USA and UK where people have been convicted without a single viable shred of evidence. But we probably both know the judicial system in your country and ours isn’t actually impartial and transparent.

1. Paul _________
2.-6. yes (with some doubts regarding the Albany letter)

QT

1. Unsub
2. No
3. No
4. NO (that’s a big no)
5. No
6. I wish I knew. Considering the repeating patterns, it sure seems like there is legitimacy in it.

1. Who is the Zodiac (your favorite/most likely suspect)?
2. Did Zodiac kill Cheri Jo Bates?
3. Did Zodiac send the Albany letters?
4. Is Donna Lass a Zodiac victim?
5. Was that really the Zodiac driving Kathleen Johns around?
6. Can the 340 cipher be solved or is it just gibberish?

Ross Sullivan
Yes
No
No
No
Yes (He couldn’t outsmart anyone if it’s just jibberish.)

1) Most likely someone we haven’t heard of.
2) Possibly
3) Not Likely
4) Possibly
5) Very unlikely
6) I’m not a code person, so while I think both are possible I don’t know enough about the evidence to have a solid opinion. It seems likely to be gibberish, since it has been worked on so much without being solved. But I have heard that things like the frequency at which certain symbols appear may point to it having a message.

1. Unsub
2. No
3. No
4. NO (that’s a big no)
5. No
6. I wish I knew. Considering the repeating patterns, it sure seems like there is legitimacy in it.

Very interesting. I must say Tahoe, you were one the one responses I was looking forward to most. From all my research and lurking, you seem to know the case like the back of your hand, but I have never seen you on the record about the major questions.

What makes you especially sure that Donna Lass is not a Zodiac victim? And I kind of thought you might be on the Ross Sullivan bandwagon, since this board seems to champion him the most…what at this point disqualifies him for you?

1. Who is the Zodiac (your favorite/most likely suspect)? My Suspect, Still Alive (not mentioned on any Zodiac forums), next Ross Sullivan then Gaikowski
2. Did Zodiac kill Cheri Jo Bates? Probably
3. Did Zodiac send the Albany letters? No, hoax letters.
4. Is Donna Lass a Zodiac victim? Yes.
5. Was that really the Zodiac driving Kathleen Johns around? Maybe?
6. Can the 340 cipher be solved or is it just gibberish? I THINK it can be solved.

1. Who is the Zodiac (your favorite/most likely suspect)?

I try not to focus on one subject but right now I find Ross Sullivan very intriguing.

Although I devote no time to him and it seems the hard evidence absolves him I can’t completely dismiss ALA. I find his buddy Don Cheney rather suspicious too.

2. Did Zodiac kill Cheri Jo Bates?

If Ross Sullivan is the Zodiac then most certainly yes. If he isn’t I’d guess it was just the start of Zodiac sending letters and taking credit for something he didn’t do, since I think he most certainly sent the letters.

3. Did Zodiac send the Albany letters?

Again, if Ross Sullivan is the Zodiac I think it’s possible as he had connections to the area. I highly doubt it though.

4. Is Donna Lass a Zodiac victim?

Doubtful, I discount very little concerning Zodiac though.

5. Was that really the Zodiac driving Kathleen Johns around?

I find her story a load of crap.

6. Can the 340 cipher be solved or is it just gibberish?

Doesn’t matter in my opinion since I think there is no way he put his name in it. It would be nice to know what it actually says though or if it does say anything.

1. Unsub
2. No
3. No
4. NO (that’s a big no)
5. No
6. I wish I knew. Considering the repeating patterns, it sure seems like there is legitimacy in it.

Very interesting. I must say Tahoe, you were one the one responses I was looking forward to most. From all my research and lurking, you seem to know the case like the back of your hand, but I have never seen you on the record about the major questions.

What makes you especially sure that Donna Lass is not a Zodiac victim? And I kind of thought you might be on the Ross Sullivan bandwagon, since this board seems to champion him the most…what at this point disqualifies him for you?

You just need to read the board more. Thanks for being interested in what I have to say. We all come to our own conclusions, of course.

In the beginning, I thought Zodiac was responsible for most everything I read. Of course, this was in the late 80’s and I just assumed if I read it, it must be true. As time went on and I got more deeply involved, my thoughts changed as I learned more about how he operated. Doesn’t make me right of course, it’s just I began to see things differently so I changed my opinion of things.

When it comes to Donna, everything about her case doesn’t fit Zodiac, imo. My biggest "beef" is we don’t even know if she is who the Pines card is referring to. It was a guess. To top it off, I personally don’t think the Pines card was written by Zodiac. Those two factors, for me, equal a big no.

Ross is an interesting character and I welcome the research. He was actually a part of Cheri’s case, whether he had anything to do with it or not–he was actually suspected back in 1966. One of the things that steers me away from Ross is that I trust LE when it comes to the reason(s) they dismissed him as a suspect. Granted, they could have been so gung-ho on their guy that they overlooked other things, but the investigation continued–and still continues. I would welcome being wrong about him though. Zodiac? I just think he was too large of a man and doesn’t seem to fit the bill. I just want the guy caught…whoever it is.

My thoughts on Kathleen Johns: viewtopic.php?f=34&t=133

The Pines Card: viewtopic.php?f=78&t=168

1. Unsub
2. No
3. No
4. NO (that’s a big no)
5. No
6. I wish I knew. Considering the repeating patterns, it sure seems like there is legitimacy in it.

Very interesting. I must say Tahoe, you were one the one responses I was looking forward to most. From all my research and lurking, you seem to know the case like the back of your hand, but I have never seen you on the record about the major questions.

What makes you especially sure that Donna Lass is not a Zodiac victim? And I kind of thought you might be on the Ross Sullivan bandwagon, since this board seems to champion him the most…what at this point disqualifies him for you?

You just need to read the board more. Thanks for being interested in what I have to say. We all come to our own conclusions, of course.

In the beginning, I thought Zodiac was responsible for most everything I read. Of course, this was in the late 80’s and I just assumed if I read it, it must be true. As time went on and I got more deeply involved, my thoughts changed as I learned more about how he operated. Doesn’t make me right of course, it’s just I began to see things differently so I changed my opinion of things.

When it comes to Donna, everything about her case doesn’t fit Zodiac, imo. My biggest "beef" is we don’t even know if she is who the Pines card is referring to. It was a guess. To top it off, I personally don’t think the Pines card was written by Zodiac. Those two factors, for me, equal a big no.

Ross is an interesting character and I welcome the research. He was actually a part of Cheri’s case, whether he had anything to do with it or not–he was actually suspected back in 1966. One of the things that steers me away from Ross is that I trust LE when it comes to the reason(s) they dismissed him as a suspect. Granted, they could have been so gung-ho on their guy that they overlooked other things, but the investigation continued–and still continues. I would welcome being wrong about him though. Zodiac? I just think he was too large of a man and doesn’t seem to fit the bill. I just want the guy caught…whoever it is.

My thoughts on Kathleen Johns: viewtopic.php?f=34&t=133

The Pines Card: viewtopic.php?f=78&t=168

All great points and this case can definitely change the way you look at things. Ive been a true crime junkie for quite a while, and always had peripheral knowledge of this case. I didnt really dive into it though until hearing Morf a couple of different times on the Generation Why podcast.

Im still trying to figure out exactly what I believe to be cold hard facts in the case, so that I have a basis to compare all other things against (thus the original series of questions). The Riverside stuff is the wildcard to me, and really changes the game if you believe it to be tied directly to Zodiac (whether you believe he was the murderer, letter authors, or both). If Riverside is connected, and there is a strong case that it is, then its really hard not to like Sullivan as a suspect.

Ive never put a lot of stock in Donna Lass as a Zodiac victim…for many of the points you made. The Lawrence Kane connection made it a little interesting but I dont think he is the Zodiac.

I think the Kathleen Johns story is completely fabricated in an effort to collect insurance money, and she just pointed to the picture on the wall to make her story sound more convincing. Little did she know how big of a story she was inserting herself into.

It can be really hard to state anything definitively about this case though. It gives me headaches and I have only really been in it for a year or so…I can only imagine what it does to those of you who have been following it 20-30 years.