Zodiackillersite.com

. Pick a random name out of a phone book and you'll have a better suspect than Kane.

As far as Sullivan is concerned, it was established that he had an alibi for both the Bates and Berryessa attacks. If that doesn't reason him out, I don't know what would.

Craigfitzer wrote:

. Pick a random name out of a phone book and you'll have a better suspect than Kane.

As far as Sullivan is concerned, it was established that he had an alibi for both the Bates and Berryessa attacks. If that doesn't reason him out, I don't know what would.

Tom you know your stuff but when you say ridiculous things like the above you lose some credibility. I know you like to get people worked up so I think it’s a bit funny.

AND there is no reliable information that Ross had an Alibi for Bates. AND I’m not saying he’s necessarily the Zodiac, just pretty much convinced its him for the the Bates murder.

One last thing, I do believe the zodiac “sketch” is fairly accurate - more then one witness to it.

Craigfitzer wrote:I have to first say that Kane is my main POI. However, for many well documented reasons I can’t seem to reason away Sullivan. I am at 90 percent on him being the riverside killer. Facially, if we are all honest there is no one who looks closer to that famous sketch. In fact, IMO its dead on. Physically, body wise I guess he doesn’t fit, however non of the main POI’s fit the physical description if you read most of the posts here.

In 2013 I posted a question “why not Laurence Kane?” There were many good responses, but kinda what I was looking for was, “it can’t be him he was in this area at that time of this or that killing.” Or something similar.

I think my main point is this: Sometimes we become so strongly motivated concerning are own POI suspicions that we don’t look at another suspect Without our own prejudice fogging up our perspective.

So I have tried reasoning away Ross because I have been some what confident on my POI Kane. I have been unsuccessful.

TomVoigt wrote:

Craigfitzer wrote:In 2013 I posted a question “why not Laurence Kane?” There were many good responses, but kinda what I was looking for was, “it can’t be him he was in this area at that time of this or that killing.” Or something similar.

Pick a random name out of a phone book and you'll have a better suspect than Kane.

As far as Sullivan is concerned, it was established that he had an alibi for both the Bates and Berryessa attacks. If that doesn't reason him out, I don't know what would.

I hope you are never a Judge, Letting the sketch Sway you that it might be a certain suspect because they are a dead fit for the sketch. Studies into there accuracy show sketches are wrong upwards of 90 percent of the time. Most of the time they look nothing like the suspect.

morf13 wrote:

TomVoigt wrote:

Craigfitzer wrote:In 2013 I posted a question “why not Laurence Kane?” There were many good responses, but kinda what I was looking for was, “it can’t be him he was in this area at that time of this or that killing.” Or something similar.

Pick a random name out of a phone book and you'll have a better suspect than Kane.

As far as Sullivan is concerned, it was established that he had an alibi for both the Bates and Berryessa attacks. If that doesn't reason him out, I don't know what would.

Tom, I know you have said this a few times now. The issue is, it not verified by anyone but you. Not to take shots at you, but it's sort of like the DNA news you said was breaking several months ago, and that Zodiac was about to be identified....and we all know how that turned out.

I have lots of the Z reports from the main jurisdictions, and there are lots of Zodiac suspects listed. NONE of them have the last name Sullivan. Furthermore, I talked to 2 different Napa investigators over the years. Both told me Ross Sullivan was not listed in their suspect list. By the flip side of the coin, they gave me the names of 2 Riverside POI's I had never heard of. Wouldn't a guy that was ruled out in the Napa crime be on the Napa files someplace? Additionally, I started this Ross Sullivan thread on your site almost 6 years ago: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/zodiack ... t7132.html

Yeah.


Your first 2 responses to the thread were "You can send away for a copy of his Social Security application". & "Too young to be Zodiac IMHO, but he still might have responsible for what happened to Cheri". A couple weeks later you wrote "He was older than I thought. Also..."a huge guy?" That doesn't really fit Zodiac." This was followed by "His height and weight are of interest to me now. Maybe someone can snag DMV records"

In fact, you made several comments early on. Not one of them was to say that 'Ross was ruled out for both the Bates case and Berryessa attack" Then at some point, you suddenly have this information that Ross was ruled out for both? Sorry, I simply don't believe that, not without seeing proof.

To further illustrate this, your post from May, 2015...."Let's put aside the Cheri Bates stuff, since there's a strong chance Zodiac did not kill her. What is the main piece of compelling info linking Sullivan to the Zodiac crimes? Pretend you have to choose one" There is still no indication that you have documentation that rules Ross out.

Flash forward to jun, 2018, another of your posts "Everyone wants a pic of Ross from 1969. I don't think he was the Zodiac, but without documentation of what he weighed etc from the relevant time period, it's an assumption he was too heavy, albeit perhaps a fair assumption for some" Still no indication you have intel that rules Ross out.

I just tried to weed thru the 60+ Ross pages on your site, and can't even find where you first state you have info about something ruling Ross out. But one way or another, you say that you have that intel. Sorry, but seeing is believing. For the reasons stated above (False DNA info, etc)and the fact you made so many posts about Ross yourself(none of them saying he was ruled out) I simply do not believe it

morf13 wrote:
it's sort of like the DNA news you said was breaking several months ago, and that Zodiac was about to be identified....

TomVoigt wrote:

morf13 wrote:
it's sort of like the DNA news you said was breaking several months ago, and that Zodiac was about to be identified....

I never said such a thing.

What I said was that DNA was recovered. Which is true. Does the DNA belong to the Zodiac? I don't know, nobody does yet.

I never claimed Zodiac was about to be identified, or that the recovered DNA definitely belonged to the Zodiac. Please make a correction.