murray wrote:I know we are missing critical information about Ross -- so, when someone is very sure it is him, with no room for doubt, I am skeptical. When accusations are made that those who find him a strong POI are "blind to the doubts, and trying to force him on others," I am equally skeptical.
duckking2001 wrote:Sorry Glurk, but I'm not sure that I agree with you. Are there really people who are saying there is NO reason to consider Ross as a suspect? If so that is ridiculous. Of course there are many good reasons or we wouldn't be having this discussion. I admit I have not read all of these pages since people seemed to be taking things very personally and getting upset.
As for the evidence...there isn't any evidence against him. I used to go around and around with this with people about ALA. There are two kinds of evidence, direct and circumstantial or indirect. Evidence is something that connects a person to an actual crime scene. They would list 17 criteria that apply to the Zodiac and call someone matching that as evidence; He had code training, he wore glasses, etc., when none of those things connect to the actual crime scene and all of those things could be true about a person and that person could still not be the killer.
So saying there is no evidence that Ross owned guns or was in the area of the crime scenes, etc. are true statements, as far as we know presently. They aren't the opposite of saying that there is proof Ross is the killer or the case is solved.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests