Zodiackillersite.com

joedetective wrote:

Paul_Averly wrote:

joedetective wrote:I think it's a joke to be quoting profilers from 1969. They pretty much thought all serial killers were schizophrenic homosexuals. In that respect I am more qualified than they were...

Wow, no wonder this case has yet to be solved by amateurs such as yourself. That might be the dumbest thing ever posted.

The pattern that keeps emerging is this: don't agree that Ross is a good suspect, bash the original investigators and their analysis. Bash Sherwood and his handwriting analysis abilities. Then make claims that you are more qualified!

No wonder Gyke is considered a good suspect by so many....

Funny the pattern I see emerging on this site is that anyone who challenges the Sullivan camp is pretty much bullied out of the site. What I said obviously went way over your head. If you want to put your faith in outdated psychological analysis go right ahead. I don't see you solving the case either. I don't appreciate my comments being taken out of context and being told by another amateur how dumb my post is.

This site will turn into morf and his yes men very soon. Sadly reminiscent of another unnamed Z site. No body there to challenge your teetering reasoning. Sad.

Bye.

morf13 wrote:Good night, and Good Luck!

This sort of thing is unfortunate.

I think joedetective was taken too literally.

He has a valid point. Back in the day (while I can't speak for profilers) many psychiatrists thought this of serial killers--sexual frustrations due to homosexuality. Homosexuality was labeled a mental disorder until the early 70's.

We have learned and evolved over the years and opinions have changed. Surely then, as today, we would find professionals who disagree about Zodiac's mental state. Could be he was just a pissed off a-hole.

In regards to your previous post morf and certain reasons those who aren't 100% with Ross and think he is not a "valid suspect"---I respectfully disagree. One reason alone doesn't make him an invalid suspect. It simply makes us question the validity of the subject at hand. It doesn't dismiss anything, it makes us question it--which is the proper thing to do.

Tahoe27 wrote:It simply makes us question the validity of the subject at hand. It doesn't dismiss anything, it makes us question it--which is the proper thing to do.

I should think so - yes.

I really think we are at an impasse with this discussion. It seems as if the "Pro's" repeat the same arguments for Ross being Zodiac as much as the "Con's" bring up argument for him not being Zodiac. Every time a negative is offered there is a Pro there to shoot down the rationalization and every time a positive is offered there is a Con to counterpoint. It's like the arguments where each party has to get in the last word. It just goes round and round and it's getting tedious.

Seagull wrote:I really think we are at an impasse with this discussion. It seems as if the "Pro's" repeat the same arguments for Ross being Zodiac as much as the "Con's" bring up argument for him not being Zodiac. Every time a negative is offered there is a Pro there to shoot down the rationalization and every time a positive is offered there is a Con to counterpoint. It's like the arguments where each party has to get in the last word. It just goes round and round and it's getting tedious.

Seagull, I don't think that this situation could have been described any better. I say, everybody take some time cool down, and revisit this thread later. Who knows, maybe we get something of value regarding Ross one way or another that provides more answers.

does anyone question the diagnosis of Ross as a schizophrenic? i believe there
are at least 4 different variations of schizophrenia. forget the homosexuality.
my mother was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic when she in her 20's.
she heard voices, had hallucinations, etc, etc. was she capable of violence?
she assaulted me when i was 3 years old. [and not the 1st time] she then spent
most of the rest of her life in an institution. was Ross capable of violence?
i would have to believe the answer is; most likely. so, what's the real issue here?
as Morf has repeatedly pointed out, there are several reasons that make Ross a
strong POI. why can't we keep those out front? what we want and need to do is
find proof of some more. [which Morf has repeatedly stressed] and if information
comes to light that rules Ross out, so be it. what bothers me is the people who
don't believe there is any real evidence pointing to him. they make statements
that are incorrect and claim that rules him out. there's other POI's listed on this
site. if some of you folks don't see him as a valid suspect, why don't you hang out
on TK or Gyke's posts and offer your opinions there? just let us who believe we're on to something here, live in our own little fantasy world.

It doesn't work like that BBP. This thread also lists "cons" so people need to be prepared to read why some don't agree with certain statements. That goes for any POI and any thread.

BBP, there are definitely some people here that you can discuss Ross with via PM etc, people that think he could be z. Also, I started a 'pro riverside' thread in the Bates writing section.

Thanks for sharing your personal experience with schizophrenia. I know Ross demonstrated some odd behavior, violent to some extent, by pinning the guy in the phone booth

i don't really have a problem with well thought-out cons. some of these people
ignore what evidence there is and just seem to be devil's advocates. i wouldn't
be surprised to hear someone say Buddy Holly looked more like the Stine sketch.
[folks, it's a lot more than the glasses]. what i'm saying is, come up with some-
thing that makes sense, pro or con. and, don't disregard the given evidence.

So who deleted my post?

I did, it was totally non-productive.