Ross Sullivan: Timeline of primary sources

Ross Sullivan Discussion

Re: Ross Sullivan: Timeline of primary sources

Postby Paul_Averly » Thu Jun 15, 2017 10:00 am

Israelite Wolfman wrote:Shepard said maybe an inch or two taller than the 5'10" officer which will be 6 foot, not 6'2"


So we should write off Ross because of 2 inches?

You are just the latest know it all to come on here and make the same 2 claims:

1) That you know how tall Z was, and attempt to eliminate a suspect based on that unknown factor.

2) Ignore all the other evidence in the entire case. Ignore all the evidence that suggests Ross is a suspect at the very least worth a good look. Then base the entire case to clear him on again: an unknown factor.

You also make claims that "no doubt "Barnett" was involved," so we can already see how objective you really are.
User avatar
Paul_Averly
 
Posts: 838
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 12:10 am

Re: Ross Sullivan: Timeline of primary sources

Postby Tahoe27 » Thu Jun 15, 2017 10:55 am

One of the few times Paul_Averly and I actually agree. :)

If we go with 5'8" to 6'2", THAT would be more compelling, but even that in itself wouldn't be enough to dismiss a suspect. People are sometimes, simply, wrong.
Image

"...they may be dealing with one or more ersatz Zodiacs--other psychotics eager to get into the act, or perhaps even other murderers eager to lay their crimes at the real Zodiac's doorstep." L.A. Times, 1969
User avatar
Tahoe27
 
Posts: 5279
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:13 pm

Re: Ross Sullivan: Timeline of primary sources

Postby Israelite Wolfman » Thu Jun 15, 2017 11:01 am

Paul_Averly wrote:
Israelite Wolfman wrote:Shepard said maybe an inch or two taller than the 5'10" officer which will be 6 foot, not 6'2"


So we should write off Ross because of 2 inches?

You are just the latest know it all to come on here and make the same 2 claims:

1) That you know how tall Z was, and attempt to eliminate a suspect based on that unknown factor.

2) Ignore all the other evidence in the entire case. Ignore all the evidence that suggests Ross is a suspect at the very least worth a good look. Then base the entire case to clear him on again: an unknown factor.

You also make claims that "no doubt "Barnett" was involved," so we can already see how objective you really are.

Cry me a river. Do u practice what u preach? u sound more like a "know it all" urself than I do. At least I speak facts, not bullshit from the back of my skull about events that I was never at. I bet you're one of the losers who secretly admire this short psychopath. "Barnett" himself was recorded in the case files as telling his friends, while is stressed, that night he killed Cheri Jo Bates and asking a friend to give him a lift there where they allegedly searched for something with a flashlight and were spotted by 2 people, what u gonna do against it? Travel in time and prevent them from giving a testimony cause it doesn't work with ur theory?

1+2) Ross Sullivan was a weirdo alright, but there is nothing other than a letter from library coworker who blamed him in the name of her and others (and we can't even verify if she actually wrote this.. #redherring?) AND the sketch from Paul Stine's murder that has crew-cut LIKE MANY OF THE PEOPLE OF THAT TIME!
User avatar
Israelite Wolfman
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 9:07 am

Re: Ross Sullivan: Timeline of primary sources

Postby Tahoe27 » Thu Jun 15, 2017 11:10 am

And so comes the justification for Ross being Zodiac....3...2...1.... :P
Image

"...they may be dealing with one or more ersatz Zodiacs--other psychotics eager to get into the act, or perhaps even other murderers eager to lay their crimes at the real Zodiac's doorstep." L.A. Times, 1969
User avatar
Tahoe27
 
Posts: 5279
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:13 pm

Re: Ross Sullivan: Timeline of primary sources

Postby Paul_Averly » Thu Jun 15, 2017 1:01 pm

Why bother, we have pages and pages as to why Ross is a great suspect. Check out the Pro's and Con's, and try to derail that thread. Tahoe has attempted to find a good reason to exclude Ross but has failed every time :lol:

As for the notion that Barnett managed to pull off the crime and avoid prosecution, I'll share a good link on the subject and a great quote that you should really read and try your best to understand the case and evidence.

http://zodiackillerfacts.com/main/river ... mysteries/

Riverside investigators had hoped that the DNA comparison would finally link the suspect to the Bates murder, but the results proved that the suspect was “eliminated as the source” of the hair found in the hand of the victim. Some sources had claimed that other damning evidence had implicated the RPD suspect in the murder of Cheri Jo Bates. All of the so-called “evidence” consisted of stories told by individuals who did not report this seemingly-important information to authorities at the time of the original investigation. According to some sources, these witnesses also submitted to polygraph examinations and the results were either inconclusive or indicated some degree of deception. The lack of credible and substantial evidence implicating the suspect in the crime seemed even more troubling after the DNA a comparison had excluded the suspect. The exclusionary evidence was obtained from the hairs found on the victim’s hand, a strong indication that the hair belonged to the killer. This hair was not similar to the hair of the RPD suspect and the DNA testing proved that the hair did not belong to him. Common sense, logic, the facts and the evidence indicated that the RPD suspect did not kill Cheri Jo Bates and, instead, pointed to other potential suspects and an alternate theory of the crime.
User avatar
Paul_Averly
 
Posts: 838
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 12:10 am

Re: Ross Sullivan: Timeline of primary sources

Postby Tahoe27 » Thu Jun 15, 2017 7:40 pm

Paul_Averly wrote: Tahoe has attempted to find a good reason to exclude Ross but has failed every time :lol:


Ross is included for good reason. I have never argued that. Myself, along with many others, just aren't as sealed on the deal as some of you are. That's all it is. ;)
Image

"...they may be dealing with one or more ersatz Zodiacs--other psychotics eager to get into the act, or perhaps even other murderers eager to lay their crimes at the real Zodiac's doorstep." L.A. Times, 1969
User avatar
Tahoe27
 
Posts: 5279
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:13 pm

Re: Ross Sullivan: Timeline of primary sources

Postby doranchak » Fri Jun 16, 2017 10:18 am

Seagull wrote:
The411 wrote:I'm working on getting some information people who went to Binghamton Central. I can get ahold of 1962 Binghamton Central yearbook, but I'm angling for a 1959 yearbook as I should be able to talk to some family friends who were at Binghamton Central when Ross was there.

On a side note there was someone(IIRC Steven Forbes) who committed murder who graduated from 1962 class.


There is a 1959 Binghamton Central yearbook at Ancestry.com, if you do not have an account there maybe I can help you find people.

Check your PM's.


I posted a bunch of yearbooks a while back, including the Binghamton Central one from 1959, at this link:

http://zodiackillersite.com/viewtopic.p ... 905#p46905
User avatar
doranchak
 
Posts: 2358
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 5:26 am

Re: Ross Sullivan: Timeline of primary sources

Postby morf13 » Sun Jun 18, 2017 1:42 pm

Israelite Wolfman wrote:
morf13 wrote:NO, you are incorrect, his height was described as being as tall as 6ft2.

Bruh, the police report said "6 foot tall", you're confusing stuff, and even if he was 6'2", he couldn't be the "zodiac" who was described as a short/stocky guy standing at 5'8"-5'11" (Cecillia Shepard said maybe an inch or two taller than the 5'10" officer which will be 6 foot, not 6'2"), hence it's not Ross Sullivan or anyone at his height UNLESS there was more than one "zodiac" = team of killers.


Please don't address me a 'BRUH', and don't doubt me when I tell you something is in a police report

Image
User avatar
morf13
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6747
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 8:48 am
Location: NJ

Re: Ross Sullivan: Timeline of primary sources

Postby morf13 » Sun Jun 18, 2017 1:46 pm

Israelite Wolfman wrote:
Paul_Averly wrote:
Israelite Wolfman wrote:Shepard said maybe an inch or two taller than the 5'10" officer which will be 6 foot, not 6'2"


So we should write off Ross because of 2 inches?

You are just the latest know it all to come on here and make the same 2 claims:

1) That you know how tall Z was, and attempt to eliminate a suspect based on that unknown factor.

2) Ignore all the other evidence in the entire case. Ignore all the evidence that suggests Ross is a suspect at the very least worth a good look. Then base the entire case to clear him on again: an unknown factor.

You also make claims that "no doubt "Barnett" was involved," so we can already see how objective you really are.

Cry me a river. Do u practice what u preach? u sound more like a "know it all" urself than I do. At least I speak facts, not bullshit from the back of my skull about events that I was never at. I bet you're one of the losers who secretly admire this short psychopath. "Barnett" himself was recorded in the case files as telling his friends, while is stressed, that night he killed Cheri Jo Bates and asking a friend to give him a lift there where they allegedly searched for something with a flashlight and were spotted by 2 people, what u gonna do against it? Travel in time and prevent them from giving a testimony cause it doesn't work with ur theory?

1+2) Ross Sullivan was a weirdo alright, but there is nothing other than a letter from library coworker who blamed him in the name of her and others (and we can't even verify if she actually wrote this.. #redherring?) AND the sketch from Paul Stine's murder that has crew-cut LIKE MANY OF THE PEOPLE OF THAT TIME!


Yeah don't go there, facts are facts, Ross looks more of a match than any other suspect ever presented and if you don't agree, you need your eyes examined. Right down to the very distinct widow's peak hairline mentioned by Fouke. But most damning of all, and I'll go back to this argument forever and ever, is that Ross worked in the RCC library where Zodiac's writing was linked to. What are the chances that Ross has a twin that was also in that library and turned out to be Zodiac?
User avatar
morf13
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6747
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 8:48 am
Location: NJ

Re: Ross Sullivan: Timeline of primary sources

Postby StitchMallone » Sun Jun 18, 2017 10:20 pm

Morf nothing against Ross and think he is a great suspect and see why he is look into. Sorry though if we are going by the Stine sketch my POI Raymond Huffman is the best I ever see and maybe I'm bias. Also think even Van Best and Peter O and etc look way more like the sketch then Ross. Ross does look good for a way heavier version of the sketch. That said sketches are usually not that close most of the times. Ross looks way better then ALA though and can still see him being the Zodiac.
StitchMallone
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:02 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Ross Sullivan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron