Nice.

thanks for that. i think the author’s approach also applies to theories regarding zodiac. if your theory only fits by cherry-picking evidence then it’s not very valid.

<soapbox>i see way too much effort going into nuanced theories that only hold up tenuously if you disregard 80% of what we know. i also see a lot of theories that selectively include and exclude evidence in that big pile of "maybe zodiac" – i.e. the sla or knife letters are only included when something about them fits the particulars of a theory and then excluded almost entirely otherwise. i know i keep beating this tired drum, but there is SO MUCH evidence that is conclusively tied to the murderer and writer of the letters that i don’t know that we really need to validate the pines card or the bates murder – imo a lot of that stuff just creates distracting noise when there really is a ton of fine-tooth-combing that could still be done on what we know is truly evidence. </soapbox>

thanks for that. i think the author’s approach also applies to theories regarding zodiac. if your theory only fits by cherry-picking evidence then it’s not very valid.

<soapbox>i see way too much effort going into nuanced theories that only hold up tenuously if you disregard 80% of what we know. i also see a lot of theories that selectively include and exclude evidence in that big pile of "maybe zodiac" – i.e. the sla or knife letters are only included when something about them fits the particulars of a theory and then excluded almost entirely otherwise. i know i keep beating this tired drum, but there is SO MUCH evidence that is conclusively tied to the murderer and writer of the letters that i don’t know that we really need to validate the pines card or the bates murder – imo a lot of that stuff just creates distracting noise when there really is a ton of fine-tooth-combing that could still be done on what we know is truly evidence. </soapbox>

I tend to agree.

Part of the problem, however, is that it will always be debatable to an extent precisely what evidence is incontrovertible. Take Bates: Going by what LE clearly thought at the time, Bates had some bearing on the Z case – he was involved somehow, whether he killer her, wrote certain texts, or both.

But. There were also representatives of LE who clearly felt that Bates was – precisely as you suggest – noise. So – what’s legitimate, what’s incontrovertible, what’s…what?

That said, you’re absolutely right that many theories suffer from a tendency to cherry pick. And the less cherries to pick from, so to speak, the less room for picking.

Part of the problem, however, is that it will always be debatable to an extent precisely what evidence is incontrovertible.

exactly, however i believe there’s enough evidence in each individual attack to find the culprit. most murderers are caught based on a single crime scene, with whatever evidence is left from the crime. we potentially have five or more crime scenes plus letters, ciphers, etc.

my suggestion is to let the bates case find the bates murderer, the lhr case find the lhr murderer, etc and only THEN start to combine with other events, facts, letters. we are lucky to have such a large population of smart people interested in solving all of these murders, ciphers, letters but i see so much time and emphasis going down random pathways.

there is so much data involved in the sphere of zodiac that i have 50mb of text and pictures not including the fbi documents. that’s literally hundreds of pages of text, notes, pictures – there’s simply no way to make a cohesive theory out of this giant pile. i think taking each event individually and creating a theory for each with suspects, motivations, modus operandi and then seeing where those categories overlap would be beneficial. i’m also trying to put my money where my mouth is by actually doing this, it’s just taking waaaay longer than i thought.

exactly, however i believe there’s enough evidence in each individual attack to find the culprit. most murderers are caught based on a single crime scene, with whatever evidence is left from the crime. we potentially have five or more crime scenes plus letters, ciphers, etc.

my suggestion is to let the bates case find the bates murderer, the lhr case find the lhr murderer, etc and only THEN start to combine with other events, facts, letters. we are lucky to have such a large population of smart people interested in solving all of these murders, ciphers, letters but i see so much time and emphasis going down random pathways.

there is so much data involved in the sphere of zodiac that i have 50mb of text and pictures not including the fbi documents. that’s literally hundreds of pages of text, notes, pictures – there’s simply no way to make a cohesive theory out of this giant pile. i think taking each event individually and creating a theory for each with suspects, motivations, modus operandi and then seeing where those categories overlap would be beneficial. i’m also trying to put my money where my mouth is by actually doing this, it’s just taking waaaay longer than i thought.

I think this is a good approach – no doubt. It’s hard to stick to it, though! We know what we know (or think we know) – and the temptation to compare aspects of different murders will be great: It takes some self discipline to focus solely on one crime at the time (no rhyme intended).

But you have a point – a very good one, in fact. Trying to form a comprehensive, cohesive theory which covers all aspects – is unrealistic for one. There are too many gaps – and when you try to fill these with little more than assumption, you’re headed down a dangerous path. Better to stick to the facts – and the fewer they are, the better in a sense.