Zodiackillersite.com

Israelite Wolfman wrote:The mysterious guy (who was probably just a weirdo pervert "watcher") from Lake Berryessa may have been there on the same day by coincidence, and he was described as 6 foot tall not 6'2". I can't imagine a person's height can be so misjudged that he will go from being 6'2" in real life to being mistaken for a short guy.

Your points have major flaws.

The mysterious guy (who was probably just a weirdo pervert "watcher")
*Dismiss any and all possibility that this person could very well be Zodiac.

and he was described as 6 foot tall not 6'2".
There were multiple descriptions, some that say over 6'. So you are also incorrect in this point.

I can't imagine a person's height can be so misjudged...
Odds are this was the same person, so yes, witness descriptions have a normal thing called inconsistencies.

*If I ever get around to it, I'm going to start a new thread that lists out very clearly why the evidence suggests the person seen at the lake was Zodiac.

Paul_Averly wrote:*If I ever get around to it, I'm going to start a new thread that lists out very clearly why the evidence suggests the person seen at the lake was Zodiac.

Please do. I've been banging this drum for YEARS.

That two undoubted weirdos--Zodiac, and the girl-stalker--could have shown up at the same out-of-the-way location at the same time seems a stretch. I vote that "both" were Zodiac.

Dag MacLugh wrote:That two undoubted weirdos--Zodiac, and the girl-stalker--could have shown up at the same out-of-the-way location at the same time seems a stretch. I vote that "both" were Zodiac.

Only because you are using logic and common sense.

The 3rd option would be, an undoubted weirdo who showd up at the same out-of-the-way location at the same time as the most brilliant Z copy cat of all time.

Pettibon Junction wrote:

Paul_Averly wrote:*If I ever get around to it, I'm going to start a new thread that lists out very clearly why the evidence suggests the person seen at the lake was Zodiac.

Please do. I've been banging this drum for YEARS.

It's been done.

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=131

Here's why I don't buy Ross:

1) Lots of guys looked like that in the 1960s. There's nothing unique about the older photo of Sullivan or the sketch of Zodiac. It's a white guy with a crew cut or closely cropped hair and GI glasses.

2) Until there's evidence linking Ross Sullivan to the death of Cheri Jo Bates, and then evidence that Cheri Jo Bates was an actual Zodiac victim, I think working backwards from scant circumstantial evidence in the Bay -- while also disregarding the serious mental disabilities Ross had -- is a mistake.

See my other posts, DO NOT post on this forum with the sole purpose of trolling a suspect or you will be banned

So in a thread called "Ross Sullivan Dissenters," I'm not allowed to say why I don't think there's enough evidence to consider Ross a viable suspect?

electromatic wrote:Here's why I don't buy Ross:

1) Lots of guys looked like that in the 1960s. There's nothing unique about the older photo of Sullivan or the sketch of Zodiac. It's a white guy with a crew cut or closely cropped hair and GI glasses.

2) Until there's evidence linking Ross Sullivan to the death of Cheri Jo Bates, and then evidence that Cheri Jo Bates was an actual Zodiac victim, I think working backwards from scant circumstantial evidence in the Bay -- while also disregarding the serious mental disabilities Ross had -- is a mistake.

You are entitled to your thoughts yay or nay if ross is the z...what makes ross so dam interesting is he has been placed in the library at rcc..no others can claim that as of yet....yea that bastard could be involved with cjb....

If you dump berryessa as being a z crime ross also comes into play in the san fran area....while i do tend to agree ross fits berryessa there is some including myself that thinks the possibility exists that berryessa was not z but a copycat...of course ross is in no way a fit for k johns...i dunno and i am not goin speak for morf..nay be you just got him on a bad day...i dont think your post was that negative in nature

electromatic wrote:So in a thread called "Ross Sullivan Dissenters," I'm not allowed to say why I don't think there's enough evidence to consider Ross a viable suspect?

My bad, post all you want about Ross here