It depends on how you read it.

If you think Zodiac wrote, or typed it, then personally I think it makes sense. If you don’t then it won’t so you have to find a comfortable context for it.

The whole thing is like a mish-mash of his later ramblings. Lets see.

We have the alteration littered first part.

‘The beautiful blond that babysits near the little store’,
‘The shapely blue eyed brownett who said no when I asked for a date’,
‘But maybe it will not be either’

Any of this sound familiar?

‘And the lady from the provences who dress like a guy who doesn’t cry’
‘and the singurly abonmily the girl who never kissed. I don’t think she would be missed’
‘But it really doesn’t matter whom you place upon the list’

Then we have.

‘I waited in the library and followed her out after about two minuts’

‘She died hard. She squirmed and shook as I choaked her, and her lips twiched. She let out a scream once and I kicked her head to shut her up. I plunged the knife into her and it broke. I then finished the job by cutting her throat’ /

‘ps. 2 cops pulled a goof abot 3 mins after I left the cab’

‘The boy was origionaly in the frunt seat when I began firing. When I fired the first shot at his head he leaped backwards at the same time thus spoiling my aim. He ended up on the back seat then the floor in back thrashing out very violently with his legs; that’s how I shot him in the knee’

There’s more of course but morf has already detailed them here.

viewtopic.php?f=79&t=511

Point is I totally understand how we can ‘interpret’ that letter but once you line it up with Zodiacs other writings I don’t think it’s that different at all. And the similarities in the printing on the envelope, and that it was concerning a murder … that Zodiac himself later references.

Let’s try and not ‘fiddle & fart around’ too much. Eh?

IMO, Cheri was Z’s first victim. The weapon of choice–a 4" blade knife–is, so to speak, amateurish; possibly, it was a pocket knife he carried regularly. The M.O. indicates the killer harbored an intense hatred toward Bates, verified by his CONFESSION rant. Evidently Bates spurned his advances "in years past"(?) so, to even the score, he dwelt on an asexual fondling of her breast.
If Z didn’t murder Cheri Bates, obviously someone else did. Which leaves us with two killers, with eerily similar M.O.s. Far easier to suppose Z originated in Riverside, and migrated to the Bay Area. If not, what happened to the guy in Riverside? Are we to suppose such a publicity hound quietly retired? It may be he suffered a well-deserved untimely death. What now? A Bay Area resident discovering and copying, years later, essential elements of Mr. Riverside’s M.O.?

‘The beautiful blond that babysits near the little store’,
‘The shapely blue eyed brownett who said no when I asked for a date’,
‘But maybe it will not be either’

Any of this sound familiar?

Sure. But how is this to be understood? That he was so heavily influenced by The Mikado that it pervaded everything he wrote? Well, it didn’t – we know that. There are no apparent Mikado references in most of his letters, only a select few.

Is it deliberate, then? A clue to his identity? I can easily buy that: He’s the high executioner, killing moral transgressors – that actually fits. More or less. But if this is correct, he was Z – much the same Z who struck again in ’68 and went public, as it were, in ’69 – back in ’66 too. The identity or persona was there. And yet he makes no reference to this, doesn’t call himself Zodiac, doesn’t mention Bates as one of his "collected slaves" when he appears on the scene as the cipher slayer a few years later. * Doesn’t write the Bates date on the car door either.

* Started collecting slaves in Dec ’68 – that’s what he says. Do we believe him? Well…not really. But is there any great reason for him not to take credit for Bates, if Bates was – in fact – a Z crime? By which I mean not that the same man was behind it, but that the same persona (who was inspired by the Mikado and so forth) was behind it. And, yes, I know – of course – that he did take credit for it. But that was only after the Riverside connection made the news – and he was given the chance to add to his own notoriety by nodding and saying, sure, I did that thing down there – and plenty more too, crazy killer that I am, so just stay terrified, people.

I wasn’t drawing a direct correlation to the Mikado. Although it might appear that way. No. What ‘I think’ I was pointing out was the whole ‘theatrical’ nature of the approach to the confession letter wording. It’s almost lyrical, like a poem or a play. It’s also a presentation of a personae. Very much like the Z we know from later years. That and the inclusion of an actual theatrical piece, albeit customized.

Then there’s the habit of describing the crime. It’s almost like a narration. That and the similar misspellings, the similar parts of the envelope writing (little as it is) and the second confession, if you will, in the LA TImes letter. There’s a lot of similarities, attention (from Z himself) around this crime and its evidence. Why not mention Bates as part of the Zodiac tally? Well, why is that so strange? It’s not like that wasn’t part of his MO, or at least his presented MO. "I shall no longer announce". The other thing that might fit too in that regard is that he’s reactive and not proactive on some occasions. This could be interpreted either way, which it is. I’m thinking about the Kathleen Johns incident here. He reacts to that being in the press and he does something specific here. He threatens her to control the leak of information. In the LA Times letter I see a similar tactic. There’s no one to threaten so he tries to make the Riverside crime seem like just another statistic.

I know the KJ thing is iffy but honestly so is a lot of the stuff if we want it to be. What was he doing? Just sitting around waiting for random mystery events or murders to write in about? or was he reacting to things that were relevant because he was involved? As for not announcing the Riverside murder as part of his tally well, technically he apparently had a lot more, a hell of a lot more that weren’t added. To me this is not unusual. He wants the focus to be on him and to do that he needs to control the flow of information and how it is presented. This guy is about to become a famous murderer and he had competition in that area so he’s hardly going to send LE on a headstart investigation to So.Cal when he wants the attention focused on himself and what he’s about to create in N.Cal. That wouldn’t make sense neither from the pov of crime or a media campaign. The Riverside ‘thing’ was superfluous to the Zodiac creation.

I used to worry as well about why he hadn’t mentioned it. Now it makes sense on several levels. To me anyway.

Far easier to suppose Z originated in Riverside, and migrated to the Bay Area. If not, what happened to the guy in Riverside? Are we to suppose such a publicity hound quietly retired? It may be he suffered a well-deserved untimely death. What now? A Bay Area resident discovering and copying, years later, essential elements of Mr. Riverside’s M.O.?

I agree and good points. It is easier, and simpler. As much as anything can be with Zodiac.

I know the KJ thing is iffy but honestly so is a lot of the stuff if we want it to be.

Most of it is iffy enough, clearly so, when looked at from the other side of the fence.

It’s not difficult to argue that Riverside was Z, based on similarities, circumstances, statements on his part, etc. Same goes for Johns – or even Lass. There are similarities all over the place, including places where it’s pretty unlikely that he played a part.

What do you focus on? Similarities or discrepancies? Is it a sounder strategy to simply include all the possibles – or to exclude all of them? Going down the latter road, you may find yourself without much to investigate – pretty much everything can be questioned, doubted, labeled a fake or a hoax.

Then again, if you include it all, you may be working from a terribly false assumption – and never progress past it.

What do you focus on? Similarities or discrepancies? Is it a sounder strategy to simply include all the possibles – or to exclude all of them? Going down the latter road, you may find yourself without much to investigate – pretty much everything can be questioned, doubted, labeled a fake or a hoax.

Then again, if you include it all, you may be working from a terribly false assumption – and never progress past it.

This is the conundrum. One, in a way, I think the forum format actually handles as best it can. Some people look for the discrepancies and work out from them to see what else can possibly be verified as ‘dodgy’. Others focus on the similarities and do likewise but to attempt to ascertain what is relevant. In the middle it’s a battleground of hurt feelings and frustrations lol.

One thing’s for sure. It’s not a boring case.

For me, I feel like I have to look at it skeptically.

Can you imagine if LE DIDN’T? It’s so much easier to try and disprove someone than prove some one was the perpetrator.

With Ross for example. LE could already know he was institutionalized during any one of Zodiac’s crimes. Done….next.

While I know WE don’t know these things and what I wrote above could very well be false, it could have been a simple task as to why Ross was checked off the list of suspects. Something as easy as that finger print., etc.

And what happens when someone’s POI cannot be placed at any one of the possible Zodiac crimes? Will they give up on him as being Zodiac?

Because WE don’t know what the cops know, we could be wasting a heck of a lot of time with many suspects. Does that mean we stop looking? No. We have no choice since we are not privy to the information, and that is unfortunate with these very old cold cases, but that’s the way it is.

I think today, Toschi would change that statement. It seems they obviously didn’t know who killed Cheri Jo….even now.

It’s very hard to find the right balance – that’s for sure. Take Ross, then, just as an example – he’s been discussed plenty lately. Let’s say that it’s material to link Z to the desktop poem if Ross is to remain a viable suspect (not saying it IS absolutely material, but many seem to think it is).

What is the main argument here? Morrill concluded it was Z. He said it was unquestionably Z. That’s not a bad argument to bring forth, given that Morrill was – undoubtedly – the foremost expert on Z’s handwriting.

But if Morrill was infallible, then Ross can’t possibly have been Z. This isn’t possible to argue against – it’s plain and simple. Morrill was convinced the ’78 letter was genuine. And Ross died in ’77.

Ergo, if Ross was Z, then Morrill was clearly not infallible. But if he was mistaken about the ’78 letter, how can we be sure he was right about the desktop poem? In both cases there were other experts who reached different conclusions.

A pick and choose method of some kind seems to be inevitable here – and that’s problematic in itself, for many reasons. It goes for almost any possible “unified” theory in this case: We have to believe NN on X – but doubt him on Y. We have to take Z’s own words at face value in one instance – but declare him a liar in the next instance. We have to assume that he followed a pattern – but that this pattern was so loose that it might as well be called…whatever the opposite of a pattern is.

And so it goes on. But boring it most certainly is not! I think we can all agree on that.

…But if Morrill was infallible, then Ross can’t possibly have been Z. This isn’t possible to argue against – it’s plain and simple. Morrill was convinced the ’78 letter was genuine. And Ross died in ’77.

Ergo, if Ross was Z, then Morrill was clearly not infallible. But if he was mistaken about the ’78 letter, how can we be sure he was right about the desktop poem? In both cases there were other experts who reached different conclusions.

This.

And it doesn’t prove one way or another Ross was or wasn’t Zodiac, just that people are human and make mistakes and nothing, it appears, is written in stone.

But if he was mistaken about the ’78 letter, how can we be sure he was right about the desktop poem? In both cases there were other experts who reached different conclusions.

Sherwood was correct about the 1978 letter, in that it was Zodiac’s handwriting, but he failed to realize it was a forgery. Major difference is that one can’t go back in time and forge the desktop before anyone even knew about Zodiac.

…But if Morrill was infallible, then Ross can’t possibly have been Z. This isn’t possible to argue against – it’s plain and simple. Morrill was convinced the ’78 letter was genuine. And Ross died in ’77.

Ergo, if Ross was Z, then Morrill was clearly not infallible. But if he was mistaken about the ’78 letter, how can we be sure he was right about the desktop poem? In both cases there were other experts who reached different conclusions.

This.

And it doesn’t prove one way or another Ross was or wasn’t Zodiac, just that people are human and make mistakes and nothing, it appears, is written in stone.

Moreover: when we debate about what constitutes "proof", we often point to handwriting analysis, witness-produced sketches, and crime scene investigations that weren’t always handled in the most organized manner. And understandably so — we do not have a whole lot else to go on. And as the years go by, we have less and less.

So while there is a call to focus only on "the facts", the temptation to get creative with what we find — be it word-of-mouth, individual conjuncture, or the context of that era — is tempting. And quite human.

I find being skeptical very helpful. Not just with the Z case, but in real life I tend to believe about 10 – 20 percent of what I hear, and only about 80 percent of what I see.

More evidence – the more the better – can manage to get my belief above 80%. It has to be pretty solid, though, and multiple sources always help. I take no one at their word.

-glurk

Sherwood was correct about the 1978 letter, in that it was Zodiac’s handwriting, but he failed to realize it was a forgery. Major difference is that one can’t go back in time and forge the desktop before anyone even knew about Zodiac.

Yes, that’s a fair enough point in itself – and a distinction worth mentioning.

But it’s not hard to see how this, too, can be spun a certain way: In being wrong, Morrill was actually right – thus strengthening his status as The Foremost Zodiac Expert (TM).

Not saying that’s what you did – but it’s easy to see how someone might be tempted to do so. Morrill was fooled – other experts were not. That would be another take on it. Morrill was very eager to confirm Z as the author of suspected exemplars – other experts were less eager. That would be yet another take – or spin.

Morrill was fooled – other experts were not. That would be another take on it. Morrill was very eager to confirm Z as the author of suspected exemplars – other experts were less eager. That would be yet another take – or spin.

The 1978 letter had a lot going on with it. At first many experts were fooled. Morrill was more eager to defend Toschi that prove the letter was authentic.