The "person of interest" label is relatively new, it was not in use back in the 60’s/70’s. Anytime a husband, brother, father, step-father, boss, employee, neighbor, etc. was reported to LE as possibly being Zodiac they were given the label "suspect." So, yeah, there certainly could have been the 2500 or so suspects that is frequently quoted. If you go through the various reports, particularly the LHR and BRS reports, virtually every single male that was questioned was a suspect and there were dozens of them between the two reports! Then add the "tips" to that and the number spirals up and up.

It was not until the Stine murder that there was a set description of Zodiac. A male of any size, shape or age was considered until that time.

The JB case is a fascinating one. I still think someone in the house did it. But I accept there are genuine reasons to think the opposite. I think for an intruders scenario to be viable, it would take the dumbest criminals on the planet. But of course it could have been the dumbest criminals on the planet.

This is a productive thread. All of us, myself included, must remember that our POIs (if that is the correct term) are just that: Persons of INTEREST, not SUSPECTS. All of us, from time to time, could be considered a POI. Take the Cheri Bates case: any male who was a student at RCC at the time of Cheri’s murder can be considered a POI. Question is: when are we liable for defamation if we term someone a POI?
To cover my ass, I freely admit I can’t prove "my" POI (or whatever he should be termed) is/was Zodiac. My wife considers me an idiot, but I’m not THAT retarded. Nor am I jumping up and down, screaming for the cops to check him out. If my info ever adds up, and reaches a critical mass, a detective will tap me on the shoulder, and say: "Thanks, Dag–now, get out of the way."
Might be that, for the purposes of this Forum, we (meaning Morf) might coin a term other than POI so visitors and/or attorneys won’t get confused, and accuse one of us of besmirching the rep of an innocent individual.

Dag: You’d only be potentially defaming someone if you stated that they were being sought by police in connection with the crime, if they were not.

To defame someone you must a. say something that is damaging to them. b. say something that is untrue.

legally you cannot defame the dead, because it’s a civil matter that is brought forth by the plaintiff. In other words if you are being defamed it’s up to you to bring up suit and prove your own case, not the other way around as in criminal cases.

We are just talking legally here. Not ethically or morally. That could be another matter.

and just according to US law. Other countries have different legal standards, some of them less permissive.

I think – but I’m no expert – that you can defame someone (i.e. be guilty of defamation) even by technically telling the truth, as long as the latter is presented in a suggestive, tendentious manner.

In other words, I think (but again – no expert) you could in theory be guilty of defamation if you present a heap of circumstantial evidence of a tenuous nature (but no outright lies) which is clearly meant to suggest that NN is the Zodiac killer (the latter being something you cannot prove).

Interesting, and educational, posts! I’m not so sure that "defaming" a dead person is entirely safe. Seems to me a relative could bring suit to protect the good name of his/her deceased family member. And, the problem gets stickier yet if a "POI" is living. Still, it seems to me that proving "defamation" would entail a full-blown judge and jury scenario, which might be expensive to the plaintiff, plus expose closeted skeletons to public view.
Facetiously, I’ve reasoned that the one "POI" who would NOT complain of being defamed would be, for obvious reasons, Zodiac himself. Therefore (my cheek is bulging from tongue, now) a sure way to expose Zodiac would be to publish the names of all known, or even suspected, Zodiac POIs. The one who DIDN’T threaten a lawsuit would therefore, by a kind of reverse elimination, be Zodiac.

I think – but I’m no expert – that you can defame someone (i.e. be guilty of defamation) even by technically telling the truth, as long as the latter is presented in a suggestive, tendentious manner.

In other words, I think (but again – no expert) you could in theory be guilty of defamation if you present a heap of circumstantial evidence of a tenuous nature (but no outright lies) which is clearly meant to suggest that NN is the Zodiac killer (the latter being something you cannot prove).

I don’t think it works that way. Remember that America embraces the right to be a jerk under the banner of free speech. Look at someone like Nancy Grace. She "implies" that people are guilty of crimes all the time. She even basically accused someone of being a murderer, and that person committed suicide afterwards. Her family tried to sue Grace, but they settled with a deal that basically amounted to her saying if they prove she was innocent then Grace will pay them, but if not she will give the money to the Center For Missing Children. Which is good, but they didn’t end up getting any money and she basically didn’t admit she did anything wrong.

I’m sure you’re right, duck – like I said, I’m no expert on this matter.

However, what seems to be the most important factor here (and no surprise) is whether you defame someone, or accuse someone of defamation, from a position of power – or not.

Take the Mr X situation: Could he have, conceivably, sued Mike Rodelli for defamation if Mike hadn’t been so careful in the way he presented his research? I don’t know, but I think it’s a possibility. X was loaded, could hire top notch lawyers, who might claim that Mike had done damage to X’s reputation without having concrete proof of anything – and this without Mike publishing any untruths about X whatsoever.

Could Mike, on his side, have hired equally expensive lawyers to argue his side of the matter? Sure, in an ideal world – but in reality he would have been pretty vulnerable in a situation like that, or so I suspect.

As far as defaming the innocent goes”’ ‘
If someone deliberately, without evidence, brought suspicion on someone as being Zodiac, he/she should be held liable. We at this Board are, I hope, serious and responsible investigators, albeit amateurs. Should one of us , as a result of said serious and responsible investigations, cast suspicion on an innocent person, the blame should be on Zodiac, not someone attempting to bring him to justice. I realize that attorneys, ever eager to sue, sue, sue don’t agree with me, but so be it.
A personal note–or notes. On two different occasions I was stopped, at gunpoint, by officers who thought I resembled the Night Stalker. They looked me over, asked me questions, then let me go on my way. I was a mistake, and they probably made a lot more. But, eventually, they got it right. You don’t want to make a mistake? Then, don’t do anything.

Should one of us , as a result of said serious and responsible investigations, cast suspicion on an innocent person, the blame should be on Zodiac, not someone attempting to bring him to justice.

I think that would be how the law, as such, would look on it too.

Might be a point there, though, to take on board, for some "investigators": Serious and responsible. Two very good concepts to keep in mind.

Some people just take things way too far, imo, and it goes beyond legalities. Some amateur "investigators" are just morally and ethically, jerks. This is why I appreciate the "Top Secret" thread here for those of interest who are still living and some common decency still needs to be allotted for those who have passed, unless they already have serious criminal records.

Tahoe:
For some reason, I’ve found the "Top Secret" section damnably elusive. Providing I’m welcome, how do I get on it>

I don’t agree with the idea that if you are innocent then you should have nothing to hide. First of all people are supposed to have a right to presumed innocence. Even further than that is the basic concept of our civil liberty. I just think that mindset goes too far and can justify anything as being OK to find the guilty, no matter how it hurts innocent people.

Tahoe:
For some reason, I’ve found the "Top Secret" section damnably elusive. Providing I’m welcome, how do I get on it>

Hi Dag–the "Top Secret" section should be at the bottom of the top section of threads in the link I provided. If you don’t see it, you might not be signed in?? If you are signed in and still don’t see it, let us know and Morf and Trav can take a closer look.

viewforum.php?f=38

I don’t agree with the idea that if you are innocent then you should have nothing to hide. First of all people are supposed to have a right to presumed innocence. Even further than that is the basic concept of our civil liberty. I just think that mindset goes too far and can justify anything as being OK to find the guilty, no matter how it hurts innocent people.

Yes – there’s a "justified means?" argument to be made here, no doubt. With 99% of so-called POIs there is NOTHING in the form of actual, proper evidence to begin with. The investigation into NN begins with something like divination on the part of the investigator.

Plus, in a general sense, the idea that if you’re innocent you have nothing to hide is just about as dangerous as it gets if you ask me. It’s one step away from Orwellian nightmares, etc.

For my money, this would be a sound approach with regard to the POI…thing:

If you believe there’s a real possibility NN was the Zodiac killer, based on whatever research you have made, then you go to the police with your finds. You certainly don’t publish your finds on the Internet as a first measure.

The "Top Secret" section on here is a good idea. It can serve as a filter of sorts. If you present a convincing case, which several (hopefully) objective people who are knowledgeable about the case agree is sufficiently interesting – then you may approach LE with your finds.

The latter has to be the endgame for any researcher – as I see it. The cops aren’t perfect, and the Z case is old, and…so forth. But getting LE involved remains the only viable route.