Leaving aside the inherent problems (there was an annoying pieces of Stine’s shirt in the Belli letter, which we can see in the photo, yadda yadda) – being able to ascribe a sensible motive to "the Zodiac letter writer who stole other people’s crimes" as "the 60’s equivalent of an internet troll" (thank you, Pettibon Junction) might help the "hoax" viewpoint, says my friend Norse.
Well, I’ve heard several potential motives offered – and they tend to vary with the perpetrator (or perpetrators) named…..
1) The letter writer was a policeman who thought it would help generate more resource for his crimefighting cause to link up some criminal events. In other words a laudable and perhaps even noble motive was behind them. At least at the start. It got more resource attached to the investigations and it kick-started the stalled LHR investigation. Hmmmm.
Well, yes, there was a strike going on in the Napa area when the letters started; they might have helped either side of the "argument" about better pay and conditions which was going on. Got the cops their money – or pushed them back to work. I’m not at all sure about this motive – the letters certainly later on insult the SF police and leave our friends in Riverside, Napa, Valleo and Benecia alone, but if the letters really started in ’66 and the guy wrote to CJ’s father, "She had to die, there will be more", I don’t rate him highly in the philanthropic and nobility scales. Nope, he was a scumbag. Back in ’66, for sure.
2) The letter writer wanted to maximise newspaper sales, further his career in [crime?] news (and so which reporter was it?) and erode rival newspapers. I don’t mind this one at all. Except those early details seem very hard to come by for a newsman. Perhaps. We don’t have to look far to see newspapers doing just what they like to try and get sales. Here in the UK we had the charming "phone tapping" thing going on a few months back, which led to the closure of "The News of the World" entirely – and which (as a low point) had an agent of the newspaper deleting messages from a deceased murder victims phone – a young girl – to see if they could then get more info from friends and family phoning it to leave messages. Charming. There’s very little reporters won’t do for a story. Scumbags!
3) Graysmith did it. (Let’s not waste time on this one – as much fun as I think it is.) GS is a profiteer of course – and a liar – but he has at at least kept "the case" in the public eye for all these years – so some kudos to the scumbag. A very little. What I haven’t heard much of is:
4) Because it was a lot of fun. Because he damn well COULD write them and get a kick out of it. Capricious attention-seeking police-hating letter writer. There’s plenty of precedence for disturbed individuals writing in to taunt the police and newspapers claiming crimes. Over here the favourite to quote is the Yorkshire RIpper enquiry – which was dreadfully compromised and extended by a hoaxer named "Wearside Jack". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wearside_Jack
Now that guy was a scumbag.
So if what precludes you from even considering a hoax being perpetrated by a letter writer, perhaps you might consider some flavour or other of the above?
Personally? I think he was a scumbag.
Some twisted person getting their jollies I suppose, but I am certain, they are not a hoax
There is more than one way to lose your life to a killer
http://www.zodiackillersite.com/
http://zodiackillersite.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/Morf13ZKS
Damnit Mike, I should learn to be more pithy. 
I’ll offer a couple of points or three, none of ’em original, none of ’em particularly salient either – but there you go:
1. IF there’s a hoax, then I’d agree with morf that the hoaxer is a twisted person (rather than someone with a more rational motive). I’d further say that he could indeed be a newspaper man – but he’d have to be a very twisted newspaper man, because I don’t believe anyone would perpetrate something on this scale just for giggles. He would have to be plenty sick, as they say.
2. IF I were to consider buying a full scale hoax theory, I think I would require a suspect: A particular newspaper man with a personality that fits (someone who might have been a proper nutjob) and with contacts who would’ve enabled him to perpetrate the hoax. I would need something substantial – the basic idea (that someone wrote the letters in order to connect unrelated crimes and thus construct a “Zodiac killer” who never actually existed) isn’t bad, but it’s pretty airy: The hoaxer’s bones need some flesh. Take a certain Horan – he kind of, sort of, points the finger at someone. But that someone is just some reporter. Horan does nothing to demonstrate that the guy was capable of creating a huge Zodiac hoax – he just happens to have been involved with the case in a professional capacity. Which is barely interesting in itself, much less compelling.
3. Earlier today I once again got to thinking about the scarcity of reports and documents pertaining to the Stine murder. Now, I don’t believe for a second that there is some kind of smoking gun hidden in the material we have yet to see. But there could very well be something there which would make us go: “Aha! So THAT is what that thing means…” In short, something which would fill some of the holes we have been puzzled by. Maybe – maybe, I say – even something they have held back because it does, in fact, connect the actual murders. And if the latter is the case, well, there goes the hoax.
It is a valuable question that can give insight into criminalistics. For me a theory is not necessarily so much a matter of importance of whether it’s true or not, but what whether or not it can be valuable for educational purposes.
I don’t outright dismiss conspiracy and hoaxes, because there is a degree of overt conspiracy in this case. That is the work of the killer. He attempted to control the flow of information gathered about the crimes, and in doing so directly shape the police investigation and the public perception of the case. That is not to be discounted, that is huge and I think that is the biggest reason why this case is so captivating. Hoax comes into play every time we do a handwriting analyses and attempt to authenticate a missive.
But I’m not so interested in these things for the case as a primary evaluation because they lack a mythological aspect that I think is crucial to it being a "phenomenon." That would be what they call today, "going viral". The Zodiac is too direct, too involved, and too interpersonal to be a viral phenomenon, which is the realm where conspiracy and hoax are at a focal point.
It has to go beyond the events that created it, and I don’t see that here. Only in the sense of the small scale Zodiac hoax, which is a phenomenon that is distinct and separate from the actual case and primary events, rather than a Grand Zodiac Conspiracy. By that I mean everything from the "proper" hoax letters to the "alternate history" of the so called true crime writers, "My daddy was the Zodiac!" etc.
I would however recommend this essay on the subject of the Jack the ripper letters which I feel is insightful into the Zodiac Phenomenon.
Norse – we agree again – the guy who wrote these letters had to be a sicko psycho. Twisted. Yes, I think so.
……. something which would fill some of the holes we have been puzzled by. Maybe – maybe, I say – even something they have held back because it does, in fact, connect the actual murders. And if the latter is the case, well, there goes the hoax.
And there may be a bunch more facts we don’t kow about which make it easier to believe that it’s not a hoax?
Nice. 
Ducky- the idea that this hoax, if it’s a hoax "lack a mythological aspect that I think is crucial to it being a "phenomenon" – is to overlook that if it’s a hoax – it’s a hoax which has connected a series of unexeceptional and unrelated murders into a phenomenon which has kept them – and the marvellous cartoon "Zodiac" – in the public eye for nearly 50 years, fuelling books, films, and argumentative web sites where people still try and play join the dots. C’mon! That’s Phenomenal!
thinking about this while excluding the phone calls – if the writer of the letters was not the killer then he would have to be very certain that none of the claimed crimes would be solved, otherwise the whole ruse goes bust.
this makes sense in a lot of cases – lhr and brs letter came seven months after lhr and about a month after brs, lb isn’t mentioned in a letter until a few weeks later (after stine killing). the only one that is pretty much immediately claimed is the stine killing with the shirt (aka the only one where we KNOW the murderer is involved with the letter).
lhr – basically a cold case when it’s claimed in a letter.
brs – a few weeks old.
lb – we know whoever did lb was trying to be the zodiac (i think lb could be a copycat but that’s a story for another thread) but it was claimed in a letter two weeks later without any details.
sf – claimed in a letter almost immediately
beyond that, stuff like "riverside activity" and claiming the johns kidnapping, the murder of an unnamed cop, the increasing kill count in the letters, etc are all vague enough to not really be tied to anything other than cases that were mentioned in the papers.
it’s not outside of the realm of reason that the person who gave specifics about lhr and brs either gathered the information via newspapers or an inside source – i.e. – the letter writer’s neighbor worked for LE or the paper. we know the letter writer got some details wrong (female victim body position) and likely made up others (the use of the penlight doesn’t make much sense) and we’ve come up with a variety of theories to explain why being wrong = being right, but still, other than the stine shirt letters there’s nothing in the letters that proves the writer was involved.
just my 2 cents.
Mas – that two cents was money well spent.
What’s the worst thing that could happen to our writer if one of the crimes were solved, anyway? Not much.
And face it, the clear-up rates that the four jurisdictions involved were attaining put the odds in his favour…..
we know the letter writer got some details wrong (female victim body position) and likely made up others (the use of the penlight doesn’t make much sense) and we’ve come up with a variety of theories to explain why being wrong = being right, but still, other than the stine shirt letters there’s nothing in the letters that proves the writer was involved.
just my 2 cents.
He didn’t get BLJ wrong if that’s what you mean. According to Stella Borges, first woman on the scene after Z had vamoosed, BLJ was indeed in the position indicated by Z in his letter. There’s a discrepancy between the papers and Z – and one part of the report and Z – but not between the initial witness (Mrs Borges) and Z.
The "electric gun sight" is pretty bizarre, certainly. How were the cops supposed to verify that one? Bizarre – but hardly an indication the letter writer didn’t do it. One might even say that in its bizarreness it indicates the opposite. A hoaxer seemingly has nothing to gain from making up an outlandish detail which cannot possibly be verified by the police.
Lastly, you omit the phone calls. But in the long run we can’t keep ’em out of the equation. They have to be explained. Who made these calls? I have serious problems with the "prankster with a police scanner" theory proffered by Horan and others.
According to Stella Borges, first woman on the scene after Z had vamoosed, BLJ was indeed in the position indicated by Z in his letter.
He had to have good access to the police reports then huh? Mr Horan thinks so and he’s gone through all the letters line by line.
But hang on a second – perhaps he got to speak to Stella Borges at some point, this guy. Or maybe even someone else who had in turn spoken to Stella B? Or who had read the reports?
In the SIX MONTHS that passed between LHR and the first letter….
Perhaps he compared his shorthand to some newspaper reports and came up with some stuff that would sound like "insider" scoops, huh? Like a perp?
From his position as someone who knew Gregg he could perhaps have been – a reporter – and acted like one?
The piece of shirt in that Stine letter is something pretty darn tangible. Everything else COULD be just pretty much phoooey. No?
I like these best, when you put them together:
"I shot a man in a parked car and I kidnapped Kathleen Stoner (who didn’t really drop her blunt and set her own car on fire) AND I killed CJB in ’66."
The "electric gun sight" is pretty bizarre, certainly. How were the cops supposed to verify that one? Bizarre – but hardly an indication the letter writer didn’t do it.
N – that’s a double negative you have there.
And yes it is bizarre. And probably doesn’t work And even if it does work, it’s irrelevent. It proves nothing. It’s phoooey. No?
If he’d said – "She panicked and ran towards the headlights of an oncoming car on LHR and I shot the sh*t out of her in sillowet" – that would be more believable. No? Less phoooey?
A good lie mixes in some known truth. I bet journalists know that, when they write their stories. "Sounds legit."
Lastly, you omit the phone calls.
I don’t. I think the first call is probably after-the-fact police reporting and yes, the letter writer could have made the others. He was bold enough. He was groovin’ on it enough. He claims to have made a call in ’66. Why not later on too then? Fine by me. If we then have to examine the details of the calls line by line, that’s fine too…
See ‘cos I don’t mind considering the scanner idea – or any other(!) in this thread. It’s a nice change from the stuff that keeps the good old ‘Zac alive on threads elsewhere…
He had to have good access to the police reports then huh? Mr Horan thinks so and he’s gone through all the letters line by line.
Yeah, I’ve never been able to determine precisely what it is which makes Mr Horan so giddy about this. He spots a contradiction someplace, I think – one which I can’t see myself.
Sure, he may have had (good) access to the police reports. Borges’ statement is right there in the reports, if he had access, he could have picked up that detail – about BLJ’s position (which changed, that’s they key here, of course – her position changed), yessir.
Then again he could have been there, seen it first hand. Works either way – I guess. Same as all the others. Nothing in those letters which prove beyond a doubt that he didn’t just read a report – or talk to someone, like Borges, yes.
Except for Stine’s shirt – yes. But according to Horan even that ain’t what it seems.
To me it isn’t completely, let’s say, natural to insist on this look-at-everything-in-isolation approach, though. It doesn’t seem intuitively right to me. There’s a series of events here – and they seem to be connected, they seem to share some characteristics beyond this letter writer, whoever he was. Seems that way to me, at least.
Just to spin hypotheticals here, I do see some scenarios that make it possible for a hoaxer of sorts.
First of all if you can accept the possibility that Zodiac "hoaxed" CJB, which i think most people can and do, then that sets up an MO to support a Zodiac as Hoaxer.
I think it’s also within the realm of believability for there to be a hoaxer for LHR and BRS. It’s possible for one person to have some insider knowledge of these events, like a report or an ambulance worker, to be the Zodiac letter writer and caller, but not necessarily the killer.
LB and SF throw the wrench because they have a more concrete connection. But what if the Zodiac hoaxed the first two crimes, and then ACTUALLY committed the second two? I think that would tie everything together.
But the strength of believing a hoax sort of requires the killer and the writer to be separate. If he’s gonna commit some murders, he might as well do them all. It’s a double edge, because the further you separate the killer from the writer, by adding in more people or more complexity, it also makes the whole thing harder to stand up to plausibility.
Good summary/analysis, duck – agree with everything there.
Many seem willing to accept a hoax (of sorts) in the Bates case – as you say. And I suppose it is possible to simply retain that logc and include LHR and/or BRS in the same pattern/development: He started out as a letter writer who took credit – more and more elaborately and, I suppose, grotesquely so – before he finally took the plunge at LB and appeared in the flesh as an actual killer – in a downright theatrical fashion, but that actually fits, one could argue that he theatricality is a natural consequence of finally appearing on stage himself.
A little something which has always bothered me about Bates versus the rest of the series is that he doesn’t refer to it either in the post BRS letter (where he does claim LHR, a previous "effort" on his part) or in his message on the LB car door (simple enough to add the Bates date to his total there).
And in a hoax setting this becomes even more bothersome, arguably. The more crimes you can safely (relatively) claim while maintaining your credibility, the better – surely.
Ducky – what does LB have? The fact that he got close enough to write on the door? Appeared within 2 1/2 hours of the crime?
I don’t see that as insurmountable.
To treat it as a hoax, you have to realise that he took advantage of his proximity to this crime; but it didn’t have to have been Lake Berryessa, necessarily.
He’d presumably have pretty soon been near another quite different crime scene to play his little game there instead.
What it seems he did have was a reasonable sense of whether a crime was likely to be solved or not. LHR was not, simply by dint of the passage of time.
From then on, though, he sailed ever closer to the wind, if I can use that rather odd metaphor. Some claims like "I shot a man in a parked car" failed.
Snatching the shirt, that’s tangible. Perhaps the best way to go about this – if you believe in a hoax theory – might be to philosophise about who could have stolen that lump of shirt.
Norse, re:
The more crimes you can safely (relatively) claim while maintaining your credibility, the better – surely.
Yes. I think. If I understand you correctly.
Claiming crimes definitely had to have had a half-life, though too, yes? I mean ONE of these police agencies was eventually going to solve ONE of the crimes being claimed, I’d hope. It could never be a long campaign, and sustainable….
And yet he didn’t try and claim CJB in the intervening three years, for some reason. Was he waiting for another nice big juicy murder in the public eye to write about….? Didn’t get as much fun out of that first one as he had hoped he would? I don’t know.
What’s your opinion about Lake Berryessa and the fact that it wasn’t written about?
It’s tangible in that if you believe the handwriting is the same (I do) then he was absolutely right there at that car door and presumably those are his footprints going down to the crime scene, too – yet later on he has nothing very much to say about it. Why?
Hoax theory would say because the actual (quite bloody) facts don’t suit his public image, or because Bryan survived and it looked like someone might get a shot at solving the thing. Or because he didn’t actually know very much about the scene at all, beyond what had already been published (and pretty much everything was.)
The letter writer (OK then, the original and more Evil Zodiac) of 1966 would have written in shortly afterward and made mention of those party balloons on the rug, I’m quite sure. No?
Perhaps writing on the door was enough? He wanted to prove involvement earlier and reeled off fact after "fact" to do so. This time, no proof in a letter was required. "I was there, tangibly, I wrote on the door, therefore I did it."
The lack of claims and a letter pertaining to Lake Berryessa are actually pretty odd, whether you can entertain the idea of a hoaxer or not.
Well, I have thought about the silence after Berryessa a lot (as we all have, I’m sure). I haven’t come up with a satisfactory explanation. But here are some possibilites which at least strike me as somewhat plausible:
He did claim it there and then, both via telephone and via the message on the car door. Some have regarded the latter as a sort of "letter" in itself, thus making an actual letter – to the papers – superfluous. There are HUGE problems with this take, though. Z was a hound for attention. And he could have easily milked Berryessa to a far greater extent if he had so pleased. He didn’t – that’s a fact.
My favourite explanation is a very simple and prosaic one: He didn’t get around to milking Berryessa. For some reason he opted to strike again very soon – and then he went nuts with the letter writing after Stine. Not satisfactory – I’ll gladly admit it. But it’s somewhat logical, if that term can be applied to anything he did (or didn’t do).
I guess the ultimate explanation would have to come from understanding the man better (and we probably never will unless he’s finally caught, dead or alive). What was he actually up to? What was the precise nature of the game he was playing? Why dress up like an executioner, make a big deal out Berryessa (his biggest deal in many ways), only to remain silent on the subject afterwards? We simply don’t know – we’d have to get inside his head to a much greater degree in order to answer such questions.
