Fascinating paper, thanks for putting it up.

An interesting read, but a little too like psychoanalysis for me. Despite the method claimed, there are tons of assumptions in there, many of them very iffy.

"The missing period after “kill” in the last sentence, indicates conflict" is a huge leap, and it isn’t close to being the most ambitious one. And yes, direct liars are probably in the "absolute minority", but so are serial killers, so any conclusion from this is highly questionable. The whole analysis of tense shift in the statement about the fingerprints ignores that tense-shift is a very common grammatical error, especially in untrained writers.

From the title of the paper, I was expecting some kind of frequency analysis and comparison with writings of some suspects.

I see flaws in their data, this, for example. It’s in the context of Zodiac claiming he used airplane cement on his fingers to hide prints…

This means the Zodiac may have attempted to give the appearance that he always wears these guards even though we know he did not wear guards during the murder of Cecelia Shepard on September 27, 1969 at Lake Berryessa. For this, he wore gloves.

Hartnell doesn’t remember if he wore gloves or not.

Then there is this about the misspellings

Much has been written about the misspellings and linguistic idiosyncrasies frequently observable in the Zodiac’s communiqués, but a consensus has not been reached as to whether or not some or all of them are fake or the result of dyslexia, a disorder that typically affects reading and spelling. Assuming the misspellings are spurious or at least a majority of them are, we can perceive the spelling of “entirle” as an indication of deception.

Many of the supposed misspellings are actually an archaic way to spell the word. You can find many of them in older literature.

So it seems here we have bad data in, so most likely bad data out.

big headline.

Nice work. Is it clear under this method that there was an erroneous Stine dispatch?

CuriousCat

I would respectfully recommend that educate yourself before 1) passing judgment 2) spreading misleading/incomplete information.

Let me help you.

1) You state that "I see flaws in their data … Hartnell doesn’t remember if he wore gloves or not."

Direct your eyes to this page: NAPA County Sheriff’s Department, Supplementary Crime Report, page 7. "Mr. Archie White … the male victim advise(d) someone that the responsible was wearing gloves."

Later, (Bryan Hartnell Interview Page 10): "I don’t remember if they had gloves on or not. I can’t remember now. I keep thinking that he had gloves on."

2) The analysis presented does not concern misspellings, except for one paragraph and it is inconclusive and hence I ended it with "A future statistical analysis may cast light on this matter" Did you even read the paper? If you want to read an analysis of the misspellings you have to get my book and read the linguistic analysis which in the back of the book.

You go on to state: "Many of the supposed misspellings are actually an archaic way to spell the word. You can find many of them in older literature."
Since you didn’t reference your assertion, and I don’t have the time to conduct a statistical analysis – maybe you can tell us: What number corresponds to "many"? Let me see your complete analysis and I will take look at it. However, it is irrelevant because the analysis is not about the misspellings.

Mr. Cat let me quote you: "So it seems here we have bad data in, so most likely bad data out."

For serious critiques and questions, I suggest that people write to my email: editor@crimeandpower.com
You might not get a prompt reply as I am in Kenya until next month.

I see flaws in their data, this, for example. It’s in the context of Zodiac claiming he used airplane cement on his fingers to hide prints…

This means the Zodiac may have attempted to give the appearance that he always wears these guards even though we know he did not wear guards during the murder of Cecelia Shepard on September 27, 1969 at Lake Berryessa. For this, he wore gloves.

Hartnell doesn’t remember if he wore gloves or not.

Then there is this about the misspellings

Much has been written about the misspellings and linguistic idiosyncrasies frequently observable in the Zodiac’s communiqués, but a consensus has not been reached as to whether or not some or all of them are fake or the result of dyslexia, a disorder that typically affects reading and spelling. Assuming the misspellings are spurious or at least a majority of them are, we can perceive the spelling of “entirle” as an indication of deception.

Many of the supposed misspellings are actually an archaic way to spell the word. You can find many of them in older literature.

So it seems here we have bad data in, so most likely bad data out.

Nice work. Is it clear under this method that there was an erroneous Stine dispatch?

Thank you, Xcaliber.

I would need more information in order to make a definitive statement regarding that point.

TheMist

You allege that the analysis contains assumptions. I think I have found one (several actually) in your response, too: "The whole analysis of tense shift in the statement about the fingerprints ignores that tense-shift is a very common grammatical error, especially in untrained writers."

It appears you are insinuating that Zodiac was an "untrained writer" – you maybe be right or wrong, but I would like you to prove that assertion or provide some evidence for it as it would be very valuable to the Zodiac community (and, yes, I am pondering the differences between the confession letter and the Zodiac letters).

You stated that: "there are tons of assumptions in there, many of them very iffy." These are not assumptions and I suggest you read a book about statement analysis or get a certificate in it.

"I was expecting some kind of frequency analysis and comparison with writings of some suspects."

Well that’s not what statement analysis is about. Statement analysis is a linguistic technique to detect deception and extract hidden information. I even stated this in my first message here when I introduced the article. So why you expected something different I can’t tell.

An interesting read, but a little too like psychoanalysis for me. Despite the method claimed, there are tons of assumptions in there, many of them very iffy.

"The missing period after “kill” in the last sentence, indicates conflict" is a huge leap, and it isn’t close to being the most ambitious one. And yes, direct liars are probably in the "absolute minority", but so are serial killers, so any conclusion from this is highly questionable. The whole analysis of tense shift in the statement about the fingerprints ignores that tense-shift is a very common grammatical error, especially in untrained writers.

From the title of the paper, I was expecting some kind of frequency analysis and comparison with writings of some suspects.

Fascinating paper, thanks for putting it up.

Thank you for your kind words

but in statement analysis, we do not assume anything. We cannot believe that he perceived himself as different from the drawing as he did not state it. Zodiac goes on to write, “only when I do my thing ….” Zodiac conveys that the description is only valid when he does “his thing,” a vague and unspecified term. Most likely, he wanted the reader to assume that “his thing” is synonymous with “killing,” but at the end of the paragraph he uses the word “kill,” indicating that he was trying to deceive the reader. Zodiac did not write that he disguised himself during the Stine crime which was the basis for the composite drawing and description.

Description: a spoken or written account of a person, object, or event.

Composite drawing: Composite drawing uses descriptions given by witnesses to create a drawing that is a useful tool for identifying or eliminating a suspect.

“The foundation of statement analysis is the concept that people mean exactly what they say or write.”

Ok.

Deceptive people usually lie via omission and misrepresentation (they want you to make certain assumptions as it is very, very rare for people to tell a direct lie). That’s what I pointed out.

Example:

Chauncy Glover has been accused of murdering a child. Here is his response to the allegation: "I would never do anything to hurt her. That’s not me. Ask anyone who knows me, and they’ll tell you I’m not that type of dude and I was good with the kids.”

Glover wants you to assume that this denial means that he didn’t kill her (don’t make that assumption) – but in statement analysis this is a very weak and deceptive denial.
It falls short of denying the specific act – which is the only acceptable denial in statement analysis, e.g. I didn’t do it.

As shown in the article, Zodiac and Fouke uses the same technique as well as others to deceive.

but in statement analysis, we do not assume anything. We cannot believe that he perceived himself as different from the drawing as he did not state it. Zodiac goes on to write, “only when I do my thing ….” Zodiac conveys that the description is only valid when he does “his thing,” a vague and unspecified term. Most likely, he wanted the reader to assume that “his thing” is synonymous with “killing,” but at the end of the paragraph he uses the word “kill,” indicating that he was trying to deceive the reader. Zodiac did not write that he disguised himself during the Stine crime which was the basis for the composite drawing and description.

Description: a spoken or written account of a person, object, or event.

Composite drawing: Composite drawing uses descriptions given by witnesses to create a drawing that is a useful tool for identifying or eliminating a suspect.

“The foundation of statement analysis is the concept that people mean exactly what they say or write.”

Ok.

Understood, suppose it’s my own assumptions that he was referring not to the composite drawing but rather the manner of his clothing etc written description . That is he only dresses like a slob whilst doing his thing and is entirely different meaning well dressed when not.

Otherwise all pretty good, i think many here would agree with your final conclusions and that attention should be directed to your Riverside commentary.

I would respectfully recommend that educate yourself before 1) passing judgment 2) spreading misleading/incomplete information.

Let me help you.

I don’t need your help. I know the facts of the case which is how I knew you are wrong when you state as fact that Zodiac wore gloves at the LB attack.

1) You state that "I see flaws in their data … Hartnell doesn’t remember if he wore gloves or not."

Direct your eyes to this page: NAPA County Sheriff’s Department, Supplementary Crime Report, page 7. "Mr. Archie White … the male victim advise(d) someone that the responsible was wearing gloves."

LOL, Archie White said someone told him the victim told them. Hahaha, seriously?

Later, (Bryan Hartnell Interview Page 10): "I don’t remember if they had gloves on or not. I can’t remember now. I keep thinking that he had gloves on."

This means the Zodiac may have attempted to give the appearance that he always wears these guards even though we know he did not wear guards during the murder of Cecelia Shepard on September 27, 1969 at Lake Berryessa. For this, he wore gloves.

Hartnell doesn’t remember if he wore gloves or not.

You prove what I said right there! Just admit you used false information. When I see things like that, it taints every thing else.

2) The analysis presented does not concern misspellings, except for one paragraph and it is inconclusive and hence I ended it with "A future statistical analysis may cast light on this matter" If you want to read an analysis of the misspellings you have to get my book and read the linguistic analysis which in the back of the book.

No, it’s not about misspellings but you sure as hell used them in your "analysis". The problem there is, you only account for them in two ways, either he doesn’t know how to spell the words or he has dyslexia, that’s flawed reasoning when you don’t take into account other possibilities, like he was well read and was using old versions of the words.

You go on to state: "Many of the supposed misspellings are actually an archaic way to spell the word. You can find many of them in older literature."
Since you didn’t reference your assertion, and I don’t have the time to conduct a statistical analysis – maybe you can tell us: What number corresponds to "many"? Let me see your complete analysis and I will take look at it. However, it is irrelevant because the analysis is not about the misspellings.

You are analysing his statements and his use of words, so it’s kind of important that you take into account all factors. I’ve never been through every "misspelling" but I have seen enough to know some seem actual misspellings, maybe intentional, but some are an archaic spelling of the word. I’ll provide reference for a few…

Clew – I’m not going to bother with finding it’s use in classic literature because it is a very common one, it’s also the corner of a sail or a ball of yarn.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/clew

I’ll provide a reference for these, but all have multiple examples of the spelling in other works.

darck – https://books.google.com/books?id=f5wCA … 20&f=false

pencel – https://books.google.com/books?id=EF_WD … el&f=false

haveing – https://books.google.com/books?id=l85I4 … ng&f=false

lyeing – https://books.google.com/books?id=HPMyA … re&f=false

Did you even read the paper?

I did. You came to the conclusion Zodiac was a liar. LOL, like we didn’t already know that. I actually agree with your conclusion, flawed as it may be.

Otherwise all pretty good, i think many here would agree with your final conclusions and that attention should be directed to your Riverside commentary.

I always thought "Riverside activity" was a way too uncommitted and casual way of taking credit for Bates.