Zodiackillersite.com

Tahoe27 wrote:^^He is, but what throws me about him is his description...then later saying Zodiac resembled Larry Kane.

Larry Kane looked nothing like Zodiac at Pacific Heights. I am also troubled by Fouke saying that Zodiac walked to a certain address in later years, but never mentioning that before. I go back to what he put in his memo early on and ignore his recent statements. Sort of the same with Mike Mageau, his latest claims don't match his original statements, so I discount his most recent claims and refer to his original statements

morf13 wrote:He is the closest match to either of those sketches ever seen. Whether or not Ross was Zodiac, that can't be disputed, it is what it is. He is the closest likeness ever of any suspect to those sketches

Who says it can't be disputed? I dispute it, I don't think that sketch looks like him. Actually, that's not true. I do think it looks like Ross.

The problem is that "looks like" is a subjective claim that doesn't offer any criteria or value scale. I think I could be said to look as much like that sketch as Ross does.

If you hold up this sketch and a picture of Ross and ask someone "do these two pictures looks alike?" you have the problem I already stated, but also creating a potential bias in that there is no other basis for comparison. The amount that these two "look alike" is relative to how much they do or don't look like other people as well.

Has everyone who has seen all the other Zodiac suspects come to the conclusion that Ross looks the most like the sketch out of all of them? One person has claimed that. I don't know that to be a fact.

There are lots of "POI"s, I'm sure that many people consider theirs in relation to this sketch. That alone should attest to the probability that there are many people who aren't suspects that resemble the sketch. It seems likely to me that some of these people could look equal to better to Ross.

Finally, how many people who knew Ross have seen the sketch and came to their own unprompted conclusion that it looks like him? I'm always pointing it out that is the purpose and the best possible use of a composite sketch.

Now I do think it's valuable to compare Ross to the sketch, don't get me wrong. My initial question was why he is now being compared to this "later" sketch, instead of the other one that I think is much more valuable. If he had not previously been compared to either one, then by all means that makes sense to do so. I guess my thinking is that if he looks like the original sketch, that's a positive value, but him looking like the other sketch doesn't increase that value because it's the same valuation, and the second sketch itself is less valuable.

You might think that I'm a naysayer that is always trying to shoot down other people's ideas. That's not what I want to do. My goal is to try to evaluate the information we have using the best and most useful criteria. I don't make any claim to having that method, but what I do is question ideas to try to establish what their method is and using that as a common valuation. It's rarely a matter of right or wrong, but is often a case where different people have different interpretations of ideas without knowing what the other persons basis is, and assuming that they both think the same thing.

There are a few reasons to not get terribly excited about this.

1) The photo of Ross is not contemporaneous with the sketches. Anyone comparing them and saying they're a match is missing, what, five years or so?

2) The nose is wrong. Ross' nose looks nothing like either sketch; his nose is thicker and the nostrils more pronounced.

3) His mouth is not as small as the sketches.

4) Google '1969 yearbook.' I found Ruel Parker, coach for the Malta, Idaho Trojans. Looks like the sketch!

http://maltaidaho.org/1969-yearbook/

...But it doesn't mean anything because the sketch is not a particularly unique look for white men in their 30s or 40s in the late 1960s.

What about Vietnam photographer Charlie Haughey? Oh sure, he was in country until May '69, but what a resemblance: http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/s ... 3/bp42.jpg

Point is, you have a long way to go to prove someone who worked in a library where a possible non-Zodiac victim was last seen alive is the actual killer. And just saying he looks like a very common archetype doesn't get you very far.

electromatic wrote:There are a few reasons to not get terribly excited about this.

1) The photo of Ross is not contemporaneous with the sketches. Anyone comparing them and saying they're a match is missing, what, five years or so?

2) The nose is wrong. Ross' nose looks nothing like either sketch; his nose is thicker and the nostrils more pronounced.

3) His mouth is not as small as the sketches.

4) Google '1969 yearbook.' I found Ruel Parker, coach for the Malta, Idaho Trojans. Looks like the sketch!

http://maltaidaho.org/1969-yearbook/

...But it doesn't mean anything because the sketch is not a particularly unique look for white men in their 30s or 40s in the late 1960s.

What about Vietnam photographer Charlie Haughey? Oh sure, he was in country until May '69, but what a resemblance: http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/s ... 3/bp42.jpg

Point is, you have a long way to go to prove someone who worked in a library where a possible non-Zodiac victim was last seen alive is the actual killer. And just saying he looks like a very common archetype doesn't get you very far.

You are nitpicking at the nose, and little details. Seems like you were just discussing this on Facebook as well.

You are picking at little details from a sketch made of a guy seen at night. Your mistake is that you think that Zodiac sat down and posed for a photo, come on now be serious and be realistic. He looks pretty damn close, closer than any other Zodiac suspect. IT IS WHAT IT IS.

As you did on Facebook, you want to mention a possible NON-ZODIAC victim. And saying that the desktop is related to her case and not Zodiac. Please for the tenth time, it does not matter if Zodiac killed Cheri Jo Bates- He probably didn't! But according to documents examiners(not just Morrill but the FBI too) Zodiac wrote on a desk in the RCC library and sent letters in the Bates case, so to that end, investigation of people in the RCC library is warranted. As I told you on Facebook, the Bates case writing is OFFICIALLY CONSIDERED AS ZODIAC WRITING BY THE CA DOJ! Ross looks pretty much damn close to that Zodiac sketch, deny all you want. Since he was in the RCC library, he should be looked at.

I don't have the patience, so this will be the ONLY warning, if you are here to solely shoot down suspects, or Ross in particular, you don't bring anything of value to this forum. So, you won't be here long. If you want to be an 'anti- Ross' troll, do it here, and here alone-

viewtopic.php?f=106&t=3138

You've been warned!

Morf, I am not nitpicking when I say that the photos of Ross are not contemporaneous with the sketches. That's as much a fact as anything else here, is it not? And a man who was known to be much heavier later in life may not be a dead ringer for a sketch of someone who, as you said, didn't pose for it and was only seen briefly at night, especially given that the photo the sketch is being compared to is years older than the source material.

I'm not denying that Ross resembles the sketch; I'm just saying you wouldn't have to look very hard to find someone of that era -- particularly in their 30s -- who did, and that just because an older photo of him looks like a sketch, which was quite literally a stab in the dark in the first place, it doesn't prove anything. Not sure how that's trolling. It's realism, perhaps, but nobody ever solved anything by believing everything.

Finally, I haven't been on Facebook since May 2011. So, whoever you're talking to there, it isn't me. I just refuse to be convinced by a string of tenuous and forced connections that someone with serious mental problems and an eventual ward of the state murdered five people, taunted the authorities about it, and got away with it.

electromatic wrote:Morf, I am not nitpicking when I say that the photos of Ross are not contemporaneous with the sketches. That's as much a fact as anything else here, is it not? And a man who was known to be much heavier later in life may not be a dead ringer for a sketch of someone who, as you said, didn't pose for it and was only seen briefly at night, especially given that the photo the sketch is being compared to is years older than the source material.

I'm not denying that Ross resembles the sketch; I'm just saying you wouldn't have to look very hard to find someone of that era -- particularly in their 30s -- who did, and that just because an older photo of him looks like a sketch, which was quite literally a stab in the dark in the first place, it doesn't prove anything. Not sure how that's trolling. It's realism, perhaps, but nobody ever solved anything by believing everything.

Finally, I haven't been on Facebook since May 2011. So, whoever you're talking to there, it isn't me. I just refuse to be convinced by a string of tenuous and forced connections that someone with serious mental problems and an eventual ward of the state murdered five people, taunted the authorities about it, and got away with it.

To your point above, get back to me when you find one that resembles the sketch that can be placed in the RCC library....I'll be waiting a long time, because you CAN'T. And nobody else has been able to in the last 50 years. You can't use the argument that "a lot of guys looked like the sketch", because a lot of guys were not in the RCC library where Zodiac's writing was linked. So let's look at everybody on the list that looks like the sketch and was in that library. First and only name on that list is Ross Sullivan.

To your Facebook comment above, okay...if you say so

Again, you're conveniently allowing for someone to look like a sketch drawn in 1969 based on a photo from (I believe) 1959. That's the date I found on this site that corresponds with the photo at the beginning of our thread. So that's a decade. I can assure you I looked vastly different at 28 compared to 18. So whether or not that photo looks more like a sketch than, say, ALA still has to make a 10-year jump for that to be the case.

Just going through the 1966 RCC yearbook, here's a list of guys who fit the characteristics and likely had occasion to visit the library:

Bill Tichenor
Dave Knutson
Charles Rose
Don Williams, Bob Pieice, Bob Millard (all in a row in the same photo)
Dave Fitzloff
Bill Bailey
Maybe Bob Hayes (gasp -- 'rh'), but he's got most of his face covered

Now, that's just guys with widow's peaks and glasses in the pictures. We don't have the '67 yearbook, which might be helpful. Or it might not; college libraries are (and definitely were then) generally open to the public, whether they're students or not. So it doesn't have to be just someone with a headshot in a yearbook who scrawled on a desk. Could be Zodiac heard about the crime, he was close to the murder location, the thought of it exhilarated him, so he went to the scene and got poetic. And maybe Ross killed Cheri. And maybe, and maybe, and maybe...

I'm really not trying to be antagonistic here; I'm just trying to debate the merits.

electromatic wrote:Again, you're conveniently allowing for someone to look like a sketch drawn in 1969 based on a photo from (I believe) 1959. That's the date I found on this site that corresponds with the photo at the beginning of our thread. So that's a decade. I can assure you I looked vastly different at 28 compared to 18. So whether or not that photo looks more like a sketch than, say, ALA still has to make a 10-year jump for that to be the case.

Just going through the 1966 RCC yearbook, here's a list of guys who fit the characteristics and likely had occasion to visit the library:

Bill Tichenor
Dave Knutson
Charles Rose
Don Williams, Bob Pieice, Bob Millard (all in a row in the same photo)
Dave Fitzloff
Bill Bailey
Maybe Bob Hayes (gasp -- 'rh'), but he's got most of his face covered

Now, that's just guys with widow's peaks and glasses in the pictures. We don't have the '67 yearbook, which might be helpful. Or it might not; college libraries are (and definitely were then) generally open to the public, whether they're students or not. So it doesn't have to be just someone with a headshot in a yearbook who scrawled on a desk. Could be Zodiac heard about the crime, he was close to the murder location, the thought of it exhilarated him, so he went to the scene and got poetic. And maybe Ross killed Cheri. And maybe, and maybe, and maybe...

I'm really not trying to be antagonistic here; I'm just trying to debate the merits.

You've made your points, now move on from this thread.

electromatic wrote:Again, you're conveniently allowing for someone to look like a sketch drawn in 1969 based on a photo from (I believe) 1959. That's the date I found on this site that corresponds with the photo at the beginning of our thread. So that's a decade. I can assure you I looked vastly different at 28 compared to 18. So whether or not that photo looks more like a sketch than, say, ALA still has to make a 10-year jump for that to be the case.

Just going through the 1966 RCC yearbook, here's a list of guys who fit the characteristics and likely had occasion to visit the library:
.....

Great, now how many were seen around the library the night of the murder?
...and of those, how many went on to have a criminal record?
...and of those, had mental illness?
...and of those, were in the SF area during the Z crimes?

Could you find one outside of Ross?

Electromatic's got some valid points... but with Ross (who I actually don't believe is the Zodiac either) We do have him in the library, the sketch kinda looks like Zodiac.(so did many many people with those damn glasses in the 60's) he apparently was in SF later, he had mental illness... but then also the last name Sullivan. with all the Gilbert and Sullivan clues from Zodiac... All that together makes Ross an excellent suspect.

The Sketch is actually the least impressive of the evidence linking him IMO.