The circumstantial evidence is confirmed by the Zodiac himself in an extraordinary way: he uses Gregg outlines to claim not one but two victims… and he claims them by name.

What does this refer to? Did I miss it in the article itself?

Anyway – this is very interesting stuff (thanks for the heads-up, smithy!) and much of what is said here seems very plausible to me.

The "little list" comments are of particular interest to me. For some time now I’ve been of the opinion that the Mikado quotes are significant, not because of the content but because Z’s mistakes here make no sense whatsoever as an attempt to come across as illiterate (or anything of the sort):

All children who are up in dates and implore you with im platt.

All people who eat pepermint and phomphit in your face,

And that nice impriest…

How do we explain these? It’s nonsense – the man hasn’t grasped what is being said, pure and simple. As the article suggests – he’s out of his depth. Genuinely so – that is what I believe. And if this is correct – it says a great a deal.

…and just to add a few comments:

I’ve never believed that Z was simply trying to fool his pursuers into thinking he was illiterate. If that’s what he was doing, he wasn’t half as intelligent as some think. A genuinely illiterate (there are degrees of illiteracy, of course, but someone who genuinely struggles to express himself in writing – let’s put it like that) person usually has a hard time making himself understood – there will be, as the article points out, "gaps" in the very communication. None such are to be found in Z’s missives – his meaning is crystal clear.

I don’t think he was dyslexic either. Dyslexics often struggle with the same thing (as mentioned above), i.e. making themselves clear – they tend not to misspell words as much as involuntarily getting their letters mixed up, which may lead to "vctimis" as much as "victoms".

Norse-

As smithy found long ago, Z’s version was VERY LIKELY based on a phonetic hearing of the Groucho Marx version. See here:

http://zodiackillertruth.forumchitchat. … on-5093740

Zodiac: All children who are up in dates and implore you with im platt.
G.Marx: And all children who are up in dates and floor you with ’em flat,

Zodiac: All people who eat pepermint and phomphit in your face,
G.Marx: And the people who eat peppermint and puff it in your face,

EDIT: Doranchak has already done a full comparison, here: http://www.zodiackillerciphers.com/?p=86

-glurk

Thanks, glurk – yes, I know about the Groucho version and I agree that it’s very likely this was the version Z listened to.

My main interest is what he does when transcribing the lyrics: In his rendering the words in question aren’t misspelled – they are pure gibberish. It would seem that he hasn’t understood what the writer (or rather singer) is saying. Regarded as an attempt to fake illiteracy, this is too elaborate to be believable. It comes across as genuine, in short – as an honest mistake, if you will. And that is significant, I think.

To clarify: I’m not pointing out a discrepancy between the standard version and Groucho’s version. What I’m getting at is that Z seemingly doesn’t understand what Groucho is singing – which means that certain phrases end up as pure nonsense when he writes them down.

And the latter is interesting enough in itself. It’s a common enough phenomenon to mishear lyrics in a song – but that normally means that you think the singer says B (a meaningful word or sentence) when in fact he or she says A (a different meaningful word or sentence). This is not what Z is up to, however. He mistakes "nisi prius nuisance" (a meaningful, albeit pretty obscure sentence) for "impriest" (which doesn’t mean anything as far as I know).

Same thing with "floor you with ’em flat" which becomes the nonsensical "implore you with im platt".

So, unless Z attaches a particular meaning to "impriest" or "im platt", what he’s doing is to transcribe words whose meaning – in fact – escapes him. It’s quite odd, actually. He could have left out the parts he didn’t understand. Anyway, before I start to ramble on endlessly here, the point would be that as an attempt at faking illiteracy these particular "misspellings" don’t fit the bill at all. Not for me – not on any level. And if he isn’t faking it here – well, perhaps he isn’t faking it at all.

Same thing with "floor you with ’em flat" which becomes the nonsensical "implore you with im platt".

So, unless Z attaches a particular meaning to "impriest" or "im platt", what he’s doing is to transcribe words whose meaning – in fact – escapes him. It’s quite odd, actually.

This is very interesting. I’ve been stuck on "impriest" and "im platt" for years, thinking that they could be the string that unravels the mystery of Z. After reading through this, it is pretty conclusive that this is just phonetic misrepresentation from the Groucho version. Great analyses, everyone!

great discussion by everyone and important in my humble opinion because anything that eliminates "clues" works for me as well as anything that binds them together. knowing that he likely misinterpreted the groucho mikado version eliminates the idea that he was giving us clues in his representation which closes a road of theories to allow everyone to focus on better ideas. good stuff.

Norse – the "claimed names" bit is on the next page of the web site from the one we’re talking about…. here:
http://crack-proof.com/zodiac-killer/li … t-victims/
I’ve deleted two posts I made on this thread while I’m reading it and thinking about it!
Is it real or a little bit of pareidolia? Hmm. Good and interesting theories can be stretched too far I think. Or maybe not. Still reading.,

Hm. Seems like well argued points to me, not being an expert on shorthand – at all.

I’d be interested to hear if anyone can think of a different (obvious or less obvious) explanation for these "doodles". They look like a "2" and an inverted "2" at first glance. Could they have been written on their respective pages prior to Z using said pages for his letter?

Hm. Seems like well argued points to me, not being an expert on shorthand – at all.

I’d be interested to hear if anyone can think of a different (obvious or less obvious) explanation for these "doodles". They look like a "2" and an inverted "2" at first glance. Could they have been written on their respective pages prior to Z using said pages for his letter?

his posts seem to be well researched and thoughtfully laid out although the shorthand theory still suffers from the fact the author acknowledges several times – shorthand is contextual, it only has to make sense to the writer. thus trying to determine which character is represented becomes a guessing game.

Yes. And then it’s a chicken and egg kind of thing to be considered here as well.

If you’re looking at a doodle, then get the idea that it’s not a doodle but shorthand, then determine it’s Gregg, then find that it’s Gregg for "something-something" minus the vocals – and THEN discover that this actually matches up with an unsolved murder which fits the time frame (and roughly the general aspects) of the Z case…well, that’s pretty damn compelling.

But is that what we’re dealing with here? Or are we dealing with someone looking for an unsolved murder to fit the idea that the doodle might be shorthand for "something-something"? There are plenty of unsolved murders which fit the time frame and which could have, conceivably, possibly been committed by Z.

And there’s the "two different chickens" theory, too.
Those two characters might be Gregg and it might even reference those two seperate murders – personally I’m not so sure – but it doesn’t have to be contemporaneous with the "Little List" text. We know the evidence hasn’t been treated especially reverentially. It may just be someone else’s doodling!

FWIW I’m impressed with the "shorthand" notion. I think that’s a good explanation of the word spacing and of the various strange spellings in the Little List letter – the creation of the letter having actually been two-stage, at least in part. The lyrics gathered in Gregg, stenographer-style, then the text written out afterward. The writer doing this to try and "keep up" with the lyrics from the record. That seems feasible.

Is this also evidence, perhaps, that the writer is THINKING in shorthand and phonetically as he’s writing – at least some of the time, throughout?
Or is what we’re looking at in at least some of the letters that they were actually composed in shorthand and then "translated into text"…?

I can see some reasons why the letters might have been composed this way – at least in part.
– Because deliberate "bad shorthand" errors or "bad translation into text" would generate text which differed from the writer’s "normal" freehand offering. (Even in respect to the spaces, inter-word and intra-word….)
– So that the writer could prepare his text in a more public space, then "write it up" later. (But then why not just wait until you get home….?)
– So that he could "keep" his original text for later reference in a more "secure" way – sending out the "unencoded" version only. (Buy a small safe…!)
And perhaps even – brace yourself for a radical idea:
– Because it was being dictated? (Ha! Don’t be silly.)

The "Belli" letter…. Hmmm. And "loose" is a very strange "phonetic" misspelling.
The "Citizen" letter’s very different. It just doesn’t have the same kind of "composed phonetically" look about it at all – and although it does have mistakes at "express" (ion), "consternation", a little stumble at "running" and also at "justifiable" – those mistakes are different from the letters in the "Zodiac" lexicon and even treated quite differently; crossed out.
Perhaps because it wasn’t composed "phonetically" – even in the guy’s head. It’s "normal freehand".
Interesting.
Any truth here?

I think much of this makes sense. There could be something here. As an explanation for both the spelling and the spacing, the shorthand angle works – I’m buying it.

Z: A crazy guy who was used to writing in short-hand and whose habits in that regard shaped his written communications as such to the extent that – well – to the extent that we see evidenced in his letters. Yes – I think this is plausible. At the very least I think it’s an idea well worth looking further into.

Re: Handling (or mishandling) of evidence.

Yes, smithy – I have thought about that too. It’s a disturbing notion, but I think it’s possible. Someone could have "doodled" on the paper after Z sent it. Wasn’t there a similar suspicion raised regarding another letter – some marks, holes (made by a paper puncher?) or something of the sort, seemingly made by the investigators?

Norse – I’m pleased you buy it too, and re: suspicions of evidence being treated heavily-handledly, yes there were, and more than that.
It’s also been said that some of the materials turned up in an ex-detectives garage at one point. (Although maybe that was the dreaded Graysmith.)
I don’t know if that’s true – but it certainly seems that the Phillips map was pinned to a board and that the "Citizen Code" note and cipher key had holes punched in it so it could be placed in a lever arch file, if we can believe our own eyes.
So yes, the evidence has often been treated less reverentially than any such item would be in this more enlightened age. That’s progress, I guess.

I think this Gregg discovery – if it is one – has some interesting implications about the level of preparation the writer undertook, about his concentration levels, and certainly about his intelligence level and possible professional background. I don’t necessarily agree with the conclusions Charlie drew on the web site I’ve lifted this from btw – the "grew up outside the US in early life" and age-group stuff. I’d dearly love to know which version of Gregg the author "seemed to be" familiar with, since that would fix the dates of his potential schooling more accurately. I need to re-read it – maybe it does.

If that’s really a "Yours Very Seriously" message in Gregg at the end of that one Bates letter, I’m amazed that option’s not been considered or commented on in the public domain before. Crazy.

Finally, It surprises me that this thread hasn’t drawn more comments! Maybe it will.

Let’s presume for the present – and for the sake of further discussion on this interesting topic – that Z had knowledge of shorthand, and that the latter is no less than an explanation for his idiosyncratic spelling and his habit of splitting up words in a certain, rather striking fashion.

To what degree might this narrow down a list of possible Zodiacs out there? Let’s work from the generally accepted theory that Z was a white male between the ages of 25 to 45 (hardly controversial!) and that he lived and worked in the Bay Area (hardly controversial either!) Let’s also presume that Z was very familiar with the art – he mastered it and was so accustomed to using it that certain effects or by-products of using the technique regularly had become second nature to him and carried over into his handwriting (or printing).

What sort of people were familiar with shorthand back then? Certainly MORE people than these days, that’s obvious. Secretaries: Yes. Male secretaries: No doubt less common than female ones in most lines of work, but not all. Military secretaries of a certain kind would arguably have been more likely to have been male. Reporters: Yes. Not regular reporters? Don’t think regular reporters knew shorthand as a rule. But some reporters (court reporters? Reporters who covered politics and political press conferences regularly?) would have – and my guess would be that most of these would have been male in the late 60s. Court stenographers: Certainly. I’m guessing here that male ones were the exception back then (it was a typically female occupation, wasn’t it?)

Secretaries (of many kinds – but most kinds would have been women back then, that’s fair to say?)

Reporters (of a certain kind, court reporters not least but also others)

Stenographers (male ones would have been rare – I surmise, at least)

Any other professions (or occupations in general) in which a knowledge of shorthand would have been required – or at least likely? Something medical, perhaps? I’m just thinking out loud – but a specialized sort of "medical secretary" of some kind?