Someone could transcribe the debate for me ?? !! So I would use the google translator …. OF COURSE NOT !!!
‘m just gets in curiosity !!!

Marclean try looking for a speech to text translator on one of the search engines. I found one that is an app for iPad but don’t know if you have an iPad. There must be something out there that can help!

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/speak-t … 41004?mt=8

Someone could transcribe the debate for me ?? !! So I would use the google translator …. OF COURSE NOT !!!
‘m just gets in curiosity !!!

Marclean try looking for a speech to text translator on one of the search engines. I found one that is an app for iPad but don’t know if you have an iPad. There must be something out there that can help!

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/speak-t … 41004?mt=8

Thank you Seagull
Unfortunately I dont have iPad.
I Downloaded in MP3 all debate , I’ll see if I can find some translation program, if not find i listen to everything very slowly, back and forth and round and losing me like my theories
cheers

Marcelo Leandro
Marcelo

Good job Morf!

Horan rambles on and on about pure speculation. It’s really hard to even put into words just how dumb this guys theory is. Overall it’s not worth getting into or wasting any amount of time to disprove it. We should just get back to focusing on the case and the real evidence.

Horan, if you do lurk this site, you are a fool. Even worse, you are a liar. You will never be missed, you will never be missed!

Well, I totally disagree with Horan & his theory, but the more the Zodiac case is put out there, the better I think it is for the case, so even a radio show with an unpopular topic such as Horan’s theory, is good. My personal issue is that people not very familiar with the case would hear Horan’s theory, and just accept it without knowing what to call him out on, or question him on. Still, he was pretty Friendly, and the debate stayed civil.

I must go have a listen. It disappoints me that an interesting theory has so much baggage now, ‘cos of Mr Horan’s general approach (and TWO "hoaxers" [more?] now involved), but it’s changed the landscape a bit, one way or another, ain’t it.

morf-
Smithy is a follower/reader of Horan’s, and I am sure that he would have much better ideas than myself, but the car door at Lake Berryessa is probably the biggest issue, IMO.
-glurk

Follower? Yep. Like you and Tom Voigt!

Many apologies! If I’d read this thread and the request for a question or two in time I think I might have wanted the answers to the following questions. Lots of them. I’m sure you didn’t need them, Mike, and let’s face it, they are of no general interest!

1) Does Mr Horan think the letters reflect knowledge of handwriting disguise techniques known and discussed in handbooks of the time? And very obvious use of those techniques?

2) Given that he thinks the hoax was perpetrated by Hal Snook in the first instance, using materials routed through his department from both the LHR and BRS attacks:
a) Are there any other examples of Mr Snook’s handwriting in the public domain (since the one example we have – the report – is by no means conclusive, either in respect of its contents or in proof of origin), and
b) Does Mr Horan believe that the attack at Lake Berryessa was completely coincidental? Perpetrated by a "copycat" right in Hal Snook’s back yard, allowing him to be a very early responder by mere happenstance, but NOT involved in any way – not even with the writing on the door?

3) Does he believe Riverside has nothing to do with later matters? Did Hal Snook have anything to do with Riverside? Could anyone else in his scenario of events have had anything to do with it? Does he believe it’s a completely isolated occurence of someone in the area writing to a newspaper and to law enforcement trying to claim responsibility for a crime, using details gleaned only from the press?

4) Is he sure that there’s information enough in the early letters to prove the involvement of a law enforcement officer at all? Contradicting the approach at Riverside somewhat? Contrary to the later very obvious use of information from the press, the Chronicle specifically, in respect to the "attack" on Kathleen Johns? (The July 24th 1970 letter). Was this (it looks like a return to the "Riverside" MO) just coincidental – or did it come about because Hal Snook was NOT involved at this juncture? There was NO useful "inside information" available?

5) What was the motive behind the hoax in respect to LHR, BRS and the earlier "try out" (?) at Riverside, anyway? Entertainment? An attempt to influence the police investigations? To expose incompetence / apathy / collusion / involvement in wrong-doing on the part of LE?

6) Is it the change in approach and in the tone of the letters after Berryessa which forces him [Mr Horan] to abandon the idea of Hal Snook’s involvement "alone"? To try and re-cast the motive for the hoax? To find another "suspect" for the letters with very very similar handwriting? Does he believe the original hoaxer (Snook?) completely abandoned his involvement at "the handover" point, whenever that was? Is it reasonable to presume that someone "taking over" the hoax, would start with a letter as long and involved as "the little list"? Did Hal Snook return to the hoax to generate the ’71 letter to the LA Times? The ’74 Exorcist letter to the Chronicle?

…..There are lots more of course.

Just FYI, I’ve lost touch with Mr Horan’s theory a little since it sprouted Mr Power and yes, I still think – as I always have – that it’s terribly undermined by the confusion encompassing what happened at Lake Berryessa and the complete negation of Riverside. (To name but two issues.)

Mr Horan doesn’t often deign to reply to posts these days; I think perhaps he’s already clearly decided "what actually happened", however fundamentally tortuous and meandering those happenings sometimes have to be… I might be wrong. I should listen to the debate, huh?

Listening to it now. There are 33 letters in the alphabet? Who knew? (I’m still listening.)

Meh. The law-abiding and public-spirited Snook and/or Power wrote to Cheri-Jo Bates father Joe saying "Bates had to die there will be more"…?

Listening to it now. There are 33 letters in the alphabet? Who knew? (I’m still listening.)

Meh. The law-abiding and public-spirited Snook and/or Power wrote to Cheri-Jo Bates father Joe saying "Bates had to die there will be more"…?

I snickered when he mentioned the 33 letters in the alphabet, not sure if you could hear me in the background.

I didn’t – but I would have, too!
Just replaying a bit – I got a mention eh? Saying something stupid or wrong, it seems. One moment!

Say! "Riverside police consider that case closed…"… They do?!

Ah! "My" bit; people think I claim Hal Snook wrote on the door……..? Well!
I think I would and could reasonably claim that the person who wrote at least the first few letters (and yes, later ones too) wrote on that door.
If we could prove that Hal Snook wrote it (or the letters), great.

Mr Horan – as he says – thinks the assailant wrote it. That’s very odd. For me, that means the assailant was NOT a "copycat". Or that the guy who wrote the letters probably committed one murder at least – at Berryessa.

That nice round (circular) colon on the door is a lovely characteristic which appeared in a letter NOT published at the time – so unless the letter writer copied the door…….
The other thing I like, is that the "round dot" thing is something written about in all the textbooks of the time.

Mr Horan’s now on his Ray Land / Dennis Land jag – but he says "EVERYTHING else a copycat would need" was available for Berryessa – but that’s not so. That’s not the case. NO circular colon or period had been printed…. I’m pretty darn sure that’s right. We’ve discussed it before….. In a thread Mr Horan appeared in….. On this board…..

The August 4th 1969 letter to the San Francisco Examiner contains that same style of colon. Beyond just being able to reproduce the handwriting, a copycat would need to have seen that unpublished letter, realised it was a feature the letter writer uniquely used and would later use again, and to have chosen to reproduce it on the door.

* Sorry, I’m editing this multiple times trying to make it sound even remotely sensible… I’m not sure it does….

i listened to the whole thing (i’m new enough to the site to not be familiar with the personalities involved) and, while i think he’s wrong about the copycat and i think he knows some of his argument isn’t any better than conjecture, i also think it’s wrong to flatly dismiss everything he’s claimed to discover. his wrong theory might still have some snippets of correct information worth further pursuit.

the biggest question i have for him is how the copycat would know those particular cases wouldn’t be solved?

the game is up once one of your claimed murders is solved and the perp is some random criminal with no connection. i can see zodiac claiming the ‘riverside activity’ and even the johns kidnapping because of the likelihood, given the passage of time, that neither would be solved, but i can’t see a copycat claiming a two-day old murder without realizing "hey if the cops solve this then i’ve blown the whole hoax". maybe i’m overthinking it, but i’ll take simple solutions over complex theories any day.

I fell asleep at around the 45 min mark, (Horan does ramble) so need to listen again.

the biggest question i have for him is how the copycat would know those particular cases wouldn’t be solved?

the game is up once one of your claimed murders is solved and the perp is some random criminal with no connection. i can see zodiac claiming the ‘riverside activity’ and even the johns kidnapping because of the likelihood, given the passage of time, that neither would be solved, but i can’t see a copycat claiming a two-day old murder without realizing "hey if the cops solve this then i’ve blown the whole hoax". maybe i’m overthinking it, but i’ll take simple solutions over complex theories any day.

I think this is why Lake Berryessa intrigues some of us. Zodiac never actually staked claim to it other than the car door. Was there a deeper reason for this? He sure wanted to make it clear he killed Paul Stine—proof, proof, proof with the others, but never the brazen claim with LB.

Zodiac threw out a lot of little hints to make one wonder, because I think with many of his claims (# count), he simply wasn’t responsible.

–smithy, in regards to the colon on the car door. I have to wonder if it was simply coincidence (if not Zodiac) that he made the colon in more of a bold format. Instead of just tapping on two dots with the pen, he wanted it to stand out so he scribbled the colon in. Zodiac had a tendency for circles–I noticed he used circles (not filled in) when writing one of his letters with a colon. Not that it isn’t possible he would fill them in, I’m only stating a colon on the car door doesn’t make or break the handwriting or provide proof, imo.

–(listening in….might take a while)

I don’t want to listen thru that 2 hour conversation between me & Horan(he did most of the talking), but he referenced the article written by Keith Power about Zodiac, and that the article mentions Maple & Cherry, and Stine’s cab tip sheet/ or fare sheet, whatever you call it. I think he mentions the article was from 10/12/69, but I can’t remember. The only article I saw from Power was this first one below from 10/16. However, it does not mention the locations of Maple & Cherry, only Washington & Cherry. Horan mentioned worded his article the way Zodiac worded his letter, mentioning Maple. I don’t see that, am I missing something?

Below, in the 2nd article from 10/12, a SF Chron story ran, which was not attributed to any Reporter. On his site, Horan wrote this-

"Back to Smithy and Warlock’s question. If the reporter responsible for the Chronicle story of October 12 (possibly Keith Power, although there’s no byline) wasn’t at the scene of the crime, then where did he get all the details for his story? If he was hanging around the Hall of Justice, then how did he know Fouke’s suspect had blond hair? Pelissetti’s report says reddish brown. So, the reporter in this very first story heard about Fouke’s blonde suspect from Fouke? Or over the radio? If he heard traffic going over the radio, why didn’t he know about the "Negro Male Adult" snafu? (If it really happened. I think it’s just as likely that Fouke heard "brown hair" in the original dispatch and didn’t bother to stop a blonde suspect. Our ONLY source EVER for this "Negro Male Adult" stuff is—the Fouke memo.) But if he WAS hanging around HOJ, and since he clearly heard about the heavyset blonde suspect from SOME source that night, then he might have also had a chance to grab a piece or two of Stine’s shirt. But if so, then how did he pick up that trip sheet that Power quoted from?"

Again, am I missing something? What is Horan’s argument here? Again, I was half asleep the night he and I did the radio show, and may have zoned out, but it seemed as if he was stating that Keith Power mentioned ‘WASHINGTON & MAPLE", despite the crime happening at Washington & Cherry. I don’t see Power once mentioning Washington & Maple, the way Z referred to it. Also, Horan seems to have some theory that Power wrote about this secret inside info, that only the police would know about, and wants to know how Power knew this info. Also, he states that "Power never wrote another Zodiac article again", and I don’t know what the importance of this would be. So again, am I missing Horan’s point????

I looked and can’t find any mention of Maple until the Zodiac letter was received on 10/13.

I looked and can’t find any mention of Maple until the Zodiac letter was received on 10/13.

That’s what I thought, but Horan keeps referring to the trip log, and to Power using the same reference Z used to Maple. Hell, Horan can’t even prove that the 10/12 story was even written by Power.

Hear slowly throughout the program in MP3, with comings and goings in the "tape" (lol)
Fortunately panelists spoke slowly and calmly, I understood 40%
Until 2023’ll understand the whole debate, but who knows there has got Z
(it’s easier to catch the Z than I learn English)
Damn, I did not find any free device for Windows translation !!!
I’ll try for android for my Sansung Tablet !!!

Marclean, I probably understood only about 40% of it too.