Hi QT,

I like your method of ensuring that every conjecture is bound to known facts. I do a lot of conjecturing, and I try to call it out when I do so, but I believe it is critical to ensure that we state the touch points that ground our speculations.

The diagram method looks very cool, too. I am having a bit of difficulty reading the writing on the diagram (my eyes aren’t great) but I think I get what you are doing. It looks to me like a tool to generate sensible avenues for exploring the case. I would like to see some more examples where you use it, if you have the inclination.

Many thanks,

G

Hi QT,

I like your method of ensuring that every conjecture is bound to known facts. I do a lot of conjecturing, and I try to call it out when I do so, but I believe it is critical to ensure that we state the touch points that ground our speculations.

The diagram method looks very cool, too. I am having a bit of difficulty reading the writing on the diagram (my eyes aren’t great) but I think I get what you are doing. It looks to me like a tool to generate sensible avenues for exploring the case. I would like to see some more examples where you use it, if you have the inclination.

Many thanks,

G

Well thanks..in fact it was done in 5-10 minutes. Axes with whatever you prefer, main criteria such as region or mo or victims profile..then focussing on the most relevant stuff we do know about Z. I fact I got surprised about some stuff just being more important than other stuff..such as the paint spots on the Timex watch, which in fact is really some sort of solid crime scene evidence. This post was about method and Z theories, so I just thought about heuristic approach..so why not visualize it.

QT

I’d like to give it a try. How do you decide what goes on which of the concentric rings?

G

I’d like to give it a try. How do you decide what goes on which of the concentric rings?

G

In this case I did it according to a non-objective value of relevance/truth. E.g. cases such as Donna Lass or Kathleen Johns are – on a first look at it – not as relevant as other confirmed Z crimes such as Jensen/Faraday or Ferrin/Mageau. Also sort of a ‘solidness’ of some piece of information may be taken, as a police report may be more reliable than some nowaday internet source. Also, an eye-witness description might be less valuable than color spots on a Timex watch.

Such a value could be created by a – weighted – additional table giving 1-5 points for each, e.g.

30% Physical evidence 0-1-2-3-4-5
20% Police reports 0-1-2-3-4-5
10% Eye witness 0-1-2-3-4-5
10% Zodiac sketch 0-1-2-3-4-5
5% Internet source 0-1-2-3-4-5
etc.

so the paint spots on the Timex would get e.g. a value of 5+5+3+0+3 = 16, while the Kathleen Johns incident would be 0+5+5+5+3 = 18, as an example.

QT