This won’t be full critique or even a partial one. Or even one at all, concerning the ‘inspiration’ or ‘motivation’ for your theorizing here. I like the thinking though. What I like is the idea that the pumpkin represents someone that’s pregnant. I find that interesting because it is rumored that Kathleen John’s also received a Halloween card. I can’t remember if the ‘pregnant’ aspect has been mentioned before?

I haven’t read the new book but I’m assuming this wasn’t in it? By that I mean the potential clews[sic] hidden in the HC. Rightly or wrongly it would have been quite clever to have thought of it so well done. I like the thinking. As to the plausibility I’ll let other’s comment.

thanks for the reply. To answer you question there is no analysis in the book concerning the card. I put the pieces together strictly from EVB Jr’s past that is documented in the book.

The whole underage marriage scandal is, to me at least, the best indicator that Van Best was almost certainly NOT the Zodiac. I would bet my bottom dollar that Z was a virgin at the time his crimes were committed. (Of course, my evidence for this is, admittedly, more circumstantial than anything in that book.)

The whole underage marriage scandal is, to me at least, the best indicator that Van Best was almost certainly NOT the Zodiac. I would bet my bottom dollar that Z was a virgin at the time his crimes were committed. (Of course, my evidence for this is, admittedly, more circumstantial than anything in that book.)

I agree with Pettibon and i think its funny how the author of that book tried to find his dads name in zodiacs writing.It all looks like some kid trying to solve a word search.I haven’t read the book but i don’t really want to because i am pretty sure earl wasn’t the zodiac.also am not really in to the zodiac suspect stuff anyway.But Shaas it was really good work you put in to the Halloween card it was interesting to read.

The thing that has stuck out most for me concerning Earl Van Best Jr is how in his eyes he was prevented from having a romance with the young girl. For obvious reasons.

Could this create a hatred for other couples? Zodiac as we know attacked several young couples, it makes sense that if this was Earl; it was his way of getting his own back at the world for something he was deprived of having.

Combine this with his dislike for Avery, and then Zodiacs publications to Avery, although circumstantial the pieces do seem to fit.

The whole underage marriage scandal is, to me at least, the best indicator that Van Best was almost certainly NOT the Zodiac. I would bet my bottom dollar that Z was a virgin at the time his crimes were committed. (Of course, my evidence for this is, admittedly, more circumstantial than anything in that book.)

Remember, the zodiac once included the following line in one of his letters: killing "is better than getting your rocks off with a girl". So either he’s a liar or he "got his rocks" with a woman at one point of his life, meaning he is NOT a virgin.

And with all due respect, i would recommend reading the new book. It makes more sense to discredit something that you have read by making arguments against the author’s claims rather than deeming the work false without even giving it a read. If it’s wrong, explain it.

Others are claiming that the other was foolishly looking for letters of his father’s name in the cyphers. There’s much more to it than that. I’m not claiming the book is 100% correct in solving the mystery, however there is 12 years of research in there that points to Earl Van Best as a possible suspect. Why not be open enough to read it. In the end you dont have to beleive it, you can make all the arguments you want to discredit it. I personally think it’s all very interesting. The author had enough data to be able to hold an interview with SFPD Homocide. And apperently he was convincing enough for the SFPD to take his DNA. So yes, there maybe something there.

The whole underage marriage scandal is, to me at least, the best indicator that Van Best was almost certainly NOT the Zodiac. I would bet my bottom dollar that Z was a virgin at the time his crimes were committed. (Of course, my evidence for this is, admittedly, more circumstantial than anything in that book.)

Remember, the zodiac once included the following line in one of his letters: killing "is better than getting your rocks off with a girl". So either he’s a liar or he "got his rocks" with a woman at one point of his life, meaning he is NOT a virgin.

And with all due respect, i would recommend reading the new book. It makes more sense to discredit something that you have read by making arguments against the author’s claims rather than deeming the work false without even giving it a read. If it’s wrong, explain it.

Others are claiming that the other was foolishly looking for letters of his father’s name in the cyphers. There’s much more to it than that. I’m not claiming the book is 100% correct in solving the mystery, however there is 12 years of research in there that points to Earl Van Best as a possible suspect. Why not be open enough to read it. In the end you dont have to beleive it, you can make all the arguments you want to discredit it. I personally think it’s all very interesting. The author had enough data to be able to hold an interview with SFPD Homocide. And apperently he was convincing enough for the SFPD to take his DNA. So yes, there maybe something there.

Of course the Zodiac was a liar. He made a TON of dubious claims in his letters as well as writing numerous things that were flat-out, demonstrably untrue.

There’s a good chance I’ll read this book at some point. I’m not dismissing it outright, but what I’ve seen making the rounds has aroused more skepticism than curiosity. I don’t know the extent of the author’s evidence (after all, he’s trying to sell books, so why put it all out there when there’s money to be made?) but based on background and behavior, EVB strikes me as a longshot, at best.

That SFPD took Van Best’s DNA means nothing more than they wanted to do their due diligence and exclude him. They did the exact same thing with Arthur Leigh Allen 30 years after he was first ruled out based on handwriting and fingerprint evidence but even after his DNA came back as a non-match, there are still plenty of folks out there trying to shoehorn that particular round peg into a Z-shaped hole. I’d say my doubts are justified.

Shaas, welcome to the board.

I really like your creativity but keep in mind that this same approach has been utilized to connect countless persons of interest to Z’s ciphers, symbols and creative aspects of his communications. We all tend to see clews in this stuff when we have a POI in mind. I like the effort but I honestly don’t put much stock in it. I also agree with Pettibon to the extent that I don’t see Van Best’s activities with the 14 year-old girl to be that incriminating. Incriminating as a creep and pedophile, yes, but Zodiac never gave any indication of having any sexual interest in the teenagers he killed (except possibly the Confession letter which we don’t know definitively that he wrote and doesn’t represent his true motivations, IMO, if he did). He had every opportunity to abduct or sexually assault his victims at Lake Berryessa and possibly other scenes and showed no sexual interest in his female victims whatsoever. He never even referred to a victim by name. If Z abducted Kathleen Johns, he gave no indication of having a sexual motive and she certainly wouldn’t have been confused with a 14 year-old.

Since you’ve read the book, perhaps you could summarize what you considered the strongest connections presented. I try to keep an open mind but admit that I’m jaded from seeing this "CASE CLOSED!" approach many times before.

I’m a bit skeptical of any solution which relies too heavily on matching Z’s "clews" with biographical facts pertaining to particular suspects. Not least when it remains debatable whether something like the Halloween card is even a genuine Z communication.

I just think it’s far too tempting, even for a level headed researcher, to see patterns where there are none – and to attach significance to details which, strictly speaking, don’t make much sense as communications from a killer to his pursuers (and the latter is presumably what these "clews" are, if they mean anything at all).

Now, you can say that it’s potentially significant that Z sends a postcard to a newspaper – a postcard featuring a picture of Abe Lincoln, because Suspect A’s uncle was a great admirer of Lincoln and even gave him, Suspect A, a stovepipe hat for his birthday one year…but consider this: a) postcards featuring Lincoln are extremely commonplace and b) if you wanted to give someone a hint as to your identity, would you – really – choose to do so by dropping a "clew" about your uncle?

That said – the case remains unsolved! So we shouldn’t dismiss anything without a second glance, I suppose.

Sorry I’ve been so out of the loop here on the message board. My father just sent me the article in the June 2, 2014 People Magazine about Gary Stewart’s father suspecting that his father was the Zodiac. From just reading the article, it was hard to tell if there are any major problems with suspecting that Earl Van Best was indeed the Zodiac.

One thing odd in the article, though, is this sentence: "A spokeswoman for the [San Francisco] police department, which Stewart claims has repeatedly declined to compare his DNA to the Zodiac’s, isn’t commenting on the new findings, telling PEOPLE, ‘It’s still an active investigation.’"

It’s been so long since I’ve been on the board, I think I’ve forgotten some of the details. Do they actually have a complete sample of the Zodiac’s DNA? Also, if this Gary Stewart is Van Best’s son, testing Gary’s DNA would indeed be helpful…not sure why the SFPD WOULDN’T do that. If he is the Zodiac’s son, his DNA will be a "haplotype" (haplo indicates "half") of the Zodiac’s DNA. Also, if Van Best died in Mexico City and is buried there, can’t they just exhume the body and test the DNA from it?

Honestly, though, I can’t recall if it’s ever been discussed here if any police department has a complete sample of the Zodiac’s DNA. Perhaps from the envelopes he licked before he sent them to the Chronicle — but I thought even that DNA was too old to analyze…???

Do they actually have a complete sample of the Zodiac’s DNA?

In a word, No. SFPD has a partial sample, that’s all I can say for a fact. The DNA situation is not entirely clear.

Also, if this Gary Stewart is Van Best’s son, testing Gary’s DNA would indeed be helpful…not sure why the SFPD WOULDN’T do that.

They don’t have the time or the resources to spare. Although they may say that Zodiac is an open investigation, it is mostly just an archive and a hotline.

Also, if Van Best died in Mexico City and is buried there, can’t they just exhume the body and test the DNA from it?

Who? Perhaps his family could, USA LE could not. If his family did obtain the DNA they would be back to the problem described above. I personally would like it if the Zodiac DNA profile could be released to the public to conduct their own results, that would clear up a lot, but I know that will probably never happen.

I don’t really know about or have an opinion on your suspect, good luck with it.