maybe part of it is the difference between those who think solving the case requires being less complicated with what we know (essentially that we’re wrong about some fact that keeps pointing us in the wrong direction) and those who think solving the case requires being more complicated (he left us hidden clues that can be cracked only if you’re willing to go down the rabbit hole). i’m definitely a member of the former mindset. to me, the latter is largely indistinguishable from nonsense.

if i’m wrong, and solving the zodiac case requires knowing which 18th century priest founded a town in california (part of one of the theories i’ve read) then there is absolutely no way it will ever be solved. however, if i’m right then it’s more a matter of finding out where we’re making bad assumptions or alternately narrowing our scope. i think efforts such as searching the papers for the letters to the editor are brilliant and more likely to be productive than other methods. i also think looking at the facts as we know them and making small assumptions that something is wrong with one of them is a fruitful endeavor (e.g. – lhr, assuming james owen didn’t hear a shot or that the timing is off then seeing if that leads us somewhere productive).