Occam's Razor & Ross?

[Norse]

Ross's Brother Tim, married Cheri's Good Friend Bonnie in 1966. Between that connection, and the fact Cheri used the RCC Library where Ross worked, I think it's safe to say they knew each other.

Thanks, morf - yes, that was it.

Well, that is pretty compelling, I'd say: It's at the very least a very good indication that he knew her.

Now, for me, the above boosts Ross' status as an interesting person in connection with Bates' murder. He fits that bill for several reasons, and this indication - that he plausibly knew her, or knew of her - makes it all the more interesting.

However, I have several problems with Zodiac being someone who a) knew Bates and b) did not kill her.

The reasons for this are too elaborate to get into in this thread, however. More to the point in this context would be to ask if there are precedents we can look at for this sort of behavior. What Ross (as Zodiac) did, if the assumptions we're working from here are correct, is this:

He inserted himself into a murder case where the victim was a girl he knew (to what extent is debatable, but we're assuming that he did know her). More precisely, he took credit for her murder, and if he wrote the Confession he did so in a manner which clearly indicates that he - for lack of a more precise term - identifies with the real killer.

He then went on to kill people himself, as the Zodiac, in a manner familiar to us all (no need to get into details there, we all know what Z did).

This seems like a remarkable development to me. From non-killing letter writer (who knew the victim) to serial killer (or whatever we want to label Z).

The question is, then: Are there precedents? Theories (psychological, criminological) that can account for such a development?

[morf13]

Well Norse, I am not a psychologist, I don't have any formal training, but it's possible Z was living in Riverside, and maybe had never killed before but had fantasized about it and such a grisly murder set him off to write a letter claiming responsibility until he could get his courage up to kill for himself. All serial killers start out someplace before they kill somebody. I could see Z evolving from a wannabe to the real deal. Good chance that Z didn't attack Kathleen Johns, but if true, it didn't stop him from taking credit from her attack. Same with Richard Radetich, etc....also quite likely that Z didn't kill the 37+ people he claims, yet he took credit for that number, so that certainly lines up with the Bates letters

[Norse]

Yes, Z undoubtedly (in my opinion) claimed victims he didn't kill. So, I have no problem with that as such.

He was also an idiosyncratic "serial" killer in many ways, so looking for relevant precedents is something of a fool's errand, arguably.

Started by taking credit for someone else's misdeeds, then proceeded to kill himself. I can easily buy that, as a general concept. The details are still problematic, though.

He proceeds from taking credit, by writing letters to LE and the press (and a familiy member), to killing without taking any credit (LHR). This wouldn't be conspicuous if it weren't for the fact that the canonical Z evolved from not taking credit (LHR) to launching a letter writing campaign. If we presume that he was responsible for the Riverside letters, the picture becomes a very different one: He's now someone who had already established himself as a letter writer, but who didn't write any letters subsequent to his debut as an actual killer. I just find that puzzling - it doesn't make perfect sense to me.

But then again, as I often say, perhaps it's unreasonable to expect sense here - nevermind perfect sense.

Anyway, what's most relevant here and now is the detail about a (more or less direct) direct connection between the Riverside letter writer and C.J. Bates. If it was Ross, he knew her - that's what we're assuming. And that is different from what I'd expect: A disturbed person who takes credit for crimes he didn't commit, that's not uncommon. Nor is it uncommon for such people to get in touch with the victim's family. But what I'd expect in such circumstances is that the person in question (the disturbed individual) is a stranger who has read about the case in the papers. Not someone with an actual connection to the victim or the victim's family.

But what I expect is of no importance whatsoever. For all I know, there are examples of the latter occurring – which is why I ask.

[Soze]

90% percent of killers admit to killing animals before they began killing humans.

Soze

[Paul_Averly]

Even if 100% of the members of this site agree Ross was Z, we would still be in the same spot. We have a good suspect, but we need proof one way or the other.

[AK Wilks]

Somewhere on site I think we have a thread about evidence showing that the Bates letters writer probably also was/was not the Bates killer, and the Bates writer/killer probably was/was not Zodiac.

There were several points raised, some of which can be debated. IIRC there was middle wire distributor, kicked in the head, the phone call, "twich", handwriting and several others. A chain of evidence which can (arguably) point to the Bates killer very likely being the Riverside writer and the Riverside writer likely being the Zodiac Killer.

So if on the basis of alibi, fingerprints and hair color Ross is eliminated as the Bates killer, some in the police and research community may eliminate or back burner him as suspect for the Riverside writings and Zodiac. Also on the handwriting of his that I saw, some interesting similarities but also many differences. I saw Ross doing two stroke "k" 's and four stroke "m" 's, not the three stroke and five stroke Z usually did.

The biggest problem being if, rightly or wrongly, RPD has eliminated Ross as the Bates killer they will do little or nothing. And despite the excellent efforts of Morf and others to gather information, and present it all good and bad, there is a stonewall for any cooperation from the family.

Ross does look like the sketch, but so do other suspects and basically any non-hippie white male of average features in that era.

Applying an Occam Razor to Z, I would not ask any questions about the Riverside CC Library, because we don't know with 100% certainty that Z killed Bates or did the writings. And to the extent that we think evidence shows the Bates killer likely did the Riverside writings and that writer likely became Zodiac, it tends to lead one away from Ross, who is seemingly eliminated as the Bates killer by alibi, fingerprints and hair color.

My Occam Razor on the case is what did Zodiac do that was different from most other killers? He wrote to newspapers demanding his words appear on the front page or innocents would die, he killed strangers who happened to be in categories of people he wrote about targeting, he wrote about taregting couples, he created elaborate codes, made bomb designs and bomb threats and left crossed lines inside a circle at a crime scene. So the simplest solution is find another person who was in the SF area at the time, fits the sketch and actually did every single thing mentioned above.

OK that was my once a year post on Ross, though I am happy to discuss any of my points. Otherwise I leave it to those with the interest to continue without me.

[morf13]

Some of those points AK are well taken.

We do have some good debate threads on whether the Bates case writing and letters were prepared by z or not. For those of you that haven't checked them out, they are worth looking at

[Paul_Averly]

The biggest problem being if, rightly or wrongly, RPD has eliminated Ross as the Bates killer they will do little or nothing. And despite the excellent efforts of Morf and others to gather information, and present it all good and bad, there is a stonewall for any cooperation from the family.

Good points, thanks for the input.

I keep thinking back to a Riverside News article that mentions "the confession" and how it was written on a (brand of typewriter) with a photo of that typewriter, with a caption "like the ones found in the RCC library."

This might be one of the reasons RPD believes the Bates suspect (and confession writer) to be a local person. The police might have actually matched the confession up to a typewriter from the RCC library. This would be information they withheld. It would be very unlikely a transient would return to type it up at the library.

This would mean the desktop and confession are both connected to the RCC library.

So one way or the other, a connection to the RCC Library hold significant weight to the Zodiac case.

[ophion1031]

Well Norse, I am not a psychologist, I don't have any formal training, but it's possible Z was living in Riverside, and maybe had never killed before but had fantasized about it and such a grisly murder set him off to write a letter claiming responsibility until he could get his courage up to kill for himself. All serial killers start out someplace before they kill somebody. I could see Z evolving from a wannabe to the real deal. Good chance that Z didn't attack Kathleen Johns, but if true, it didn't stop him from taking credit from her attack. Same with Richard Radetich, etc....also quite likely that Z didn't kill the 37+ people he claims, yet he took credit for that number, so that certainly lines up with the Bates letters

Sorry to get off topic, but this is exactly how I feel about Fred Manalli, not having the courage to kill at first. I think he wrote the letters and then started killing in the early 70's - the Santa Rosa murders.

As far as Ross, who knows? He has to be the top CJB suspect, but there's just too many unknowns for the bay area Zodiac activity.

[duckking2001]

Thanks Norse for elaborating on some of the problems with the assumption of Ross as Z but NOT as Bate's killer. Glad it's not just me that thinks that.

Someone, or Ross, could still be Zodiac and not Bates' killer. That is plausible. But anything that takes away from him as CJB killer suspect ALSO takes away from him as a Zodiac suspect. That was my point. That seems obvious.

I say again, if he wasn't a Bates suspect, we wouldn't think of him as a Zodiac suspect, even if he makes a good one on his own.