Absolutely! Some people have their own suspects and have made a fascinating case without ridiculing others for not believing it. There are many who I respect even though I may not believe their man is Zodiac.

The number of people for whom Zodiac is a "family matter."

Personally, I don’t have a an issue with those who hold steadfast to their poi. Although tunnel vision is never a good trait when it comes to investigation, I have the highest respect for people like Mike R, who always presents factual evidence, and brings respect and fairness to the discussion, to the point where he’ll even argue with posters who share his poi.

Like many of us, I have a my own poi that I feel strongly about, at least in regards to his involvement, but I keep an open mind, and am constantly looking into other suspects. Let’s face it, there isn’t one suspect that has been discussed so far that fits perfectly, where handwriting, description, profile, timeline, and everything else all checks out. There is always something we have to make allowances for.

The point of these message boards is to challenge one another, to point out what works and doesn’t work. What really irks me is when people take it personal and get all defensive anytime they’re challenged.

Yes – I agree with all that, Joe. Mike has always struck me as a serious guy – and he’s an example of a researcher with a POI who is nevertheless able to discuss the case rationally. And – which is the main thing – he doesn’t bend the facts out of shape in order to promote his man.

The number of people for whom Zodiac is a "family matter."

Hehe. Yeah. The list is pretty long.

Still, they’re not all the same, I guess. With all the suspects who have been brought up over the years – and discussed on boards like this one – it’s more than likely you may stumble over a suspect/relative innocently. That’s different from the likes of…well, we all know who they are, who construct cases against their relatives based on pretty much nothing.

The number of people for whom Zodiac is a "family matter."

Hehe. Yeah. The list is pretty long.

Still, they’re not all the same, I guess. With all the suspects who have been brought up over the years – and discussed on boards like this one – it’s more than likely you may stumble over a suspect/relative innocently. That’s different from the likes of…well, we all know who they are, who construct cases against their relatives based on pretty much nothing.

It seems the common thread with these "family" Z’s is that they all look at the composite and say, "DAD! UNCLE! STEPDAD! LOOKS JUST LIKE HIM!" I would invite anyone to have a look at composites in major cases of perps who have been caught and guess what? They may have the same hair color, "swarthy" brow or whatever- but I have yet to see a composite that matches a perpetrator to the extent that its practically a portrait. People make FAR too much of that freaking composite. They act like it was sketched with Z right in front of them over a cup of coffee or something.
As proof, I offer you the composite of the suspect we now know as Ted Bundy. I doubt ANYONE would have looked at that and said, "wow, that looks like ol’ Ted". Its not entirely useless, but almost.

Yes – and it seems almost like the more detailed these composites are, the less they resemble the actual person. The most detailed sketch of Dennis Rader, for instance, resembles him less than the rougher, less detailed ones.

I’ve only seen one truly great sketch – of the Green River killer, I think it was. Looks just like the guy – but that one is clearly an exception to the rule. On a general note, I think the quality of composite sketches depends as much – if not more – on the talent of the artist as it does on the observational skills of the witnesses.

People who think Z was gay. From Rick Marshall to Richard Giak, there’s a history of homosexuals who have been scapegoated. Ok, so he parodies one little show tune, that doesn’t warrent a theory that Z was gay. I’m not saying he definitely wasn’t gay or that there are no queer serial killers, but they usually go after their own kind. Dahmer case in point.

People who think Z was gay. From Rick Marshall to Richard Giak, there’s a history of homosexuals who have been scapegoated. Ok, so he parodies one little show tune, that doesn’t warrent a theory that Z was gay. I’m not saying he definitely wasn’t gay or that there are no queer serial killers, but they usually go after their own kind. Dahmer case in point.

Don’t forget Gacy, tho he was far less "comfortable" with his homosexuality than D. Maybe he was gay, but it doesn’t seem to necessarily play into his methodology. Tho, I always thought the phrase "Getting your rocks off with a girl" was peculiar and trite. Like something someone would say in a locker room to prove that they were all that. The phrase almost seems like the equivalent of a "beard". It seems like he wanted us all to think he was straight. Which in the prismatic world of Z could PROVE he was GAY.

People who think Z was gay. From Rick Marshall to Richard Giak, there’s a history of homosexuals who have been scapegoated. Ok, so he parodies one little show tune, that doesn’t warrent a theory that Z was gay. I’m not saying he definitely wasn’t gay or that there are no queer serial killers, but they usually go after their own kind. Dahmer case in point.

Don’t forget Gacy, tho he was far less "comfortable" with his homosexuality than D. Maybe he was gay, but it doesn’t seem to necessarily play into his methodology. Tho, I always thought the phrase "Getting your rocks off with a girl" was peculiar and trite. Like something someone would say in a locker room to prove that they were all that. The phrase almost seems like the equivalent of a "beard". It seems like he wanted us all to think he was straight. Which in the prismatic world of Z could PROVE he was GAY.

Gacy was a pedophile, not a homosexual. I understand the importance of questioning everything Z said in his correspondence, but that phrase suggests to me that having sex with women was his second favorite thing to do. If he was trying to prove he was straight he would have went more out of his way than one little comment.

Gacy wasn’t a pedophile. All of his victims were sexually mature males.

Gacy wasn’t a pedophile. All of his victims were sexually mature males.

Under 16 is not sexually mature. He could have been both. He was also married to a woman for what that’s worth. I love getting into the heads of sickos as much as the next guy, but Gacy is too weird even for me.

As a pedophile is attracted to children who have not yet begun puberty, the correct term for someone who prefer teenagers is ephebophile. Most of Gacy’s victims were in their late teens/early 20s. This may suggest that Gacy was something of a pederast (or, in gay parlance, "chicken hawk") but he was most assuredly not a pedophile.

I don’t think Gacy’s pathology as all that unique. He was more or less a garden-variety sexual sadist.

Another thing that irks me about the case is when, on message boards, a thread gets REALLY OFF-TOPIC when people starting using the thread to argue back and forth.

That’s what PM’s are for.

-glurk

PJ, given what he did to young people, I find the whole dressing up as a clown business too freaky. Yeah, Z gives me the creeps, but Gacy makes my skin crawl.

Glurk, posters who get anal about messageboards…. just kidding. I am terrible at compartmentalizing, but I always thought the topics were just jumping boards. Rest assured, I’m done discussing JWG with Petticoat (we were hardly arguing) and suggest starting a new thread if the discussion keeps revolving arond him.

My biggest irk…it’s not solved.