Provocation: Theories make us blind to new possibilities!

While I am a big advocate of the need to improve the way we build our theories, it occurs to me that there is a downside to being the proud owner of a new theory. That is that our pet theories tend to blind us to possibilities that don’t match our mindset. When that happens, we are prone to dismissing good possibilities. For this reason, even the most intelligent and knowledgeable theorist tend to lose value as experts, precisely because they believe they are already close to the answer.

One suggestion that I have heard, and which I believe is truly solid advice, is to try to entertain more than one theory at a time–and preferably, theories that seem might be at odds with each other in some way.

The tension that is created in working through and trying to build support for two distinct theories makes it easier to maintain objectivity.

Regards,

G

Whether one believes (as do I) or does not, that Z is responsible for Cheri Bates’ death, it remains that he was familiar with the Bay Area. This eliminates individuals with MOs similar to Z’s, but whose stomping grounds were elsewhere. One reason Z escaped detection is that he was thoroughly familiar with his killing grounds. He got in, got out, and knew escape routes with which a stranger would be unfamiliar.

The process of many people in finding "POI"s seems to be that they find someone suspicious and then they notice that person has similarities to what they’ve heard about the Zodiac. Despite the fact that they don’t know anything about the Zodiac case they believe that they have a good suspect for the crimes and then they learn more about the case to find more connections to their "POI". While it is possible this method of finding a random suspicious person will turn up the Zodiac, it is definitely true that only one of them can be the right one. So the hundreds of other people using the same criteria must be wrong for the same reason that one is right. Overall I’d say that makes it an unreliable technique.

At the very least I’d say that one should be somewhat familiar with the case history before attempting to find a suspect.

The process of many people in finding "POI"s seems to be that they find someone suspicious and then they notice that person has similarities to what they’ve heard about the Zodiac. Despite the fact that they don’t know anything about the Zodiac case they believe that they have a good suspect for the crimes and then they learn more about the case to find more connections to their "POI". While it is possible this method of finding a random suspicious person will turn up the Zodiac, it is definitely true that only one of them can be the right one. So the hundreds of other people using the same criteria must be wrong for the same reason that one is right. Overall I’d say that makes it an unreliable technique.

At the very least I’d say that one should be somewhat familiar with the case history before attempting to find a suspect.

I agree.

After making my post on here I had a long conversation offline about it. Now I don’t know what to think.

My basic point was that I didn’t think the odds for someone discovering a random person to be the Zodiac were very high because most people are not the Zodiac. The person who debated me disagreed. They countered that by the same logic most or all of the people who were investigated by police and by amateur Z site members are not Zodiac either. If people who know about the Zodiac case have been unable to solve it, then it only makes sense if it gets solved it will be by someone with little or no prior interest in the case. In other words there’s probably someone out there who knows who the Zodiac is, but doesn’t know enough about the case to put it together.

Obviously this is a simplification of the issue just for demonstration purposes.

After making my post on here I had a long conversation offline about it. Now I don’t know what to think.

My basic point was that I didn’t think the odds for someone discovering a random person to be the Zodiac were very high because most people are not the Zodiac. The person who debated me disagreed. They countered that by the same logic most or all of the people who were investigated by police and by amateur Z site members are not Zodiac either. If people who know about the Zodiac case have been unable to solve it, then it only makes sense if it gets solved it will be by someone with little or no prior interest in the case. In other words there’s probably someone out there who knows who the Zodiac is, but doesn’t know enough about the case to put it together.

Obviously this is a simplification of the issue just for demonstration purposes.

I agree with some of what you wrote,but there are a couple key things. First, and foremost, Police are NOT actively investigating the Z case. While the case may be open, that doesnt mean they are out looking for him. In fact, on the contrary,I think they are tired of hearing the word ‘ZODIAC’, and dismiss tips from the public, or bury them in the filing cabinet, which is what makes me think the case will not be solved.

I would bet money on this….if this forum,and other forums like this had full access to all the Zodiac evidence, suspect files, etc, I bet we could find some things of interest. We discuss this case as a group more in a day than these Detectives do probably in a month. Look on the bright side, in another 20 years, the case would be 60+ years old, and Z would be very likely dead. Police, FBI,etc might choose to make public all materials at that time. Anybody here want to make a date for 20 years from now? Then again, John Averitt has had no luck getting SBPD to release the Domingos/Edwards materials after 50 years, so who knows.

After making my post on here I had a long conversation offline about it. Now I don’t know what to think.

My basic point was that I didn’t think the odds for someone discovering a random person to be the Zodiac were very high because most people are not the Zodiac. The person who debated me disagreed. They countered that by the same logic most or all of the people who were investigated by police and by amateur Z site members are not Zodiac either. If people who know about the Zodiac case have been unable to solve it, then it only makes sense if it gets solved it will be by someone with little or no prior interest in the case. In other words there’s probably someone out there who knows who the Zodiac is, but doesn’t know enough about the case to put it together.

Obviously this is a simplification of the issue just for demonstration purposes.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but still agree (mostly) with your first post.

If someone feels their, Dad, uncle or brother might be Zodiac…I feel that is different and they might have valid reasons as to why. But, if you found some random guy amongst your Zodiac search efforts as a amateur investigator…that is more questionable, imo.

For example, there is a lady who wrote a book (I won’t get into her name or the title here) who thought of "Astronomy" so she looked at clubs in Riverside. She then found a photo of a man who she felt would look like the Zodiac killer and started to investigate him. She accused him of horrible crimes with no proof the guy had even been arrested and is now calling him a vicious serial killer. THIS is the problem I have.

Theories aren’t bad, but to claim them as fact…no good, imo.

Most of the people claiming a relative was zodiac, are weirdos looking for attention.Deb Perez, Kauffman, etc… One day, who knows, maybe somebody will clean out their Uncle’s belongings upon his death,and find a mask, bloody knife, and rope, along with a confession letter,but so far the people presenting ‘evidence’ like this are not trustworthy.

I agree with you Tahoe. Yeah, that pretty much was my point.

I just mentioned the counterpoint because someone presented a well articulated response, which I’ve kind of failed to present, that made me open to looking at things from a different angle.

Also what I said could be seen as discouraging amateur investigators from even bothering, especially people new to the case, which isn’t what I intended.

That’s an interesting idea Morf about the files being released. I know that FBI files are released to the public, but local PD cases are not exactly classified, they just aren’t shared. Does it make a difference with time passing or is it just a matter of whether they want to share them or not?

One bit of advice that I especially appreciated about Z-theories was an article that Mike Kelleher wrote.

http://zodiacrevisited.com/advancing-a- … er-theory/

One particularly important point that he made was to try to get help from others–especially from more experienced theorists.

If you are new to Z-research and think you have a worth-while theory, I recommend you read Mike K’s article.

Best,

G

Here is an article on how moral outrage may influence our judgemnts:

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131203141808.htm

The Zodiac Killer case tends to evoke a certain amount of morale outrage at times, so I thought this would be worth thinking about.

G

G, do you this Zodiac’s own moral outrage, though skewed, may have been a motive for his crimes?

G, do you this Zodiac’s own moral outrage, though skewed, may have been a motive for his crimes?

Possible, yes. But not if he were a psychopath. Initially, I assumed Z was a psychopath, or perhaps a sociopath, though everybody seems to have different definitions for those words. Either word implies to me a rather complete lack of conscience, and by extension a complete lack of social conscience.

Recently I have been considering other possibilities–possibilities that suggest he may have been experiencing a
new sense of social identity when he (putatively) sent the letters of 1974. And that new sense of identity may have gone hand in hand with a new sense of moral outrage.

So, in the latter case, he would have been capable of experiencing real morale outrage, even if it manifested itself in a very skewed manner, as you pointed out. If he was capable, I would suggest that it may very well have played a role in his crimes. If that were the case, I would almost bet on it.

Good question.

Take care,

G

Hi ggluckman,

love your systemic approach..it’s an own science for itself. Any Z theory, like others, may only be approached heuristically, imo (at least as long as there is no rock-solid evidence appearing). So we should focus on the simple facts – and decisions – made by Z or what we do know about him. From my point of view this is e.g. the following:

– Z had a dyslectic writing style, possibly was suffering dyslexia
– Z had used felt pens instead of e.g. ballpens (art/media/mechanic job?)
– Z had multiple guns, possibly was a hunter
– Z had (access to) a light tan to brown car with the LH tire distance e.g. matching a Ford Mercury Comet
– Z was mainly active in the Mt. Diablo/Vallejo and Riverside area
– Z had paint on his Timex watch
– Z was not a car mechanic in 1966 as distribution wires won’t kill a car battery
– Z had used flashlights
– Z was mainly focussed on the SF Chronicle, also had ties to lawyers
– Z’s appearance was about 6’0”, 200 lbs., dark blond to brown hair, possibly wearing glasses
– Z knew the area around Latterman Hospital, Lake Herman, Lake Berryessa and Blue Rock Springs
..and so on and so on..

A possible approach could be to draw such criteria in sort of a diagram, according to their importance/truth, in Z style of course:

According to this, one possible conclusion could be that the most important criteria to find Z could be:

WITNESS: His appearance as described by the man near-by the phone booth as well as Kathleen Johns and Fouke
BEHAVIOUR: His connections to ‘Paradice’ / ‘Deer Lodge’ and the letter sent to Melvin Belli
REGION: His Vallejo connection
EVIDENCE: The Timex watch and the color spots on it

Of course such approach leaves enough room for individual interpretation..nevertheless: The caliber now becomes rather unimportant as a.) Z had used multiple weapons and b.) he was not the only person with access to a 22 caliber. So it’s less important as long as there is no ballistic match.

Also the cross-connections are puzzle-solving. So if we now do have a Melvin Belli keeping a speech in Riverside, with Z (presumably) having committed a CJB crime in Riverside, this is a solid hint for a connection between those two spots, indicating that Z may have visited exactly this speech of Melvin Belli. Also if a light tan / brown car was seen at two scenes, it indicates that Z had access to such a car on a regular basis. A good question therefore could be: Who visited Melvin Belli’s speech in Riverside and drove a light tan to brown Mercury Comet during that time?

QT