New member seeking guidance

[ByGun]

Hi. I'm interested that this case has never been solved, and came here wondering if the reason might become clearer. I have always viewed this case as a tragedy for the victims, their family and friends, and not as a game. I do have a suspect in mind though I may remain unwilling to publicly discuss that. In that vein, I have a few questions that seem to bear upon the subject matter here.

What are the definitions of defamation (slander and libel) that the resident Zodiac experts and board moderators apply?

What is the definition of "evidence" that the resident Zodiac experts and board moderators apply for the purpose of discussing suspects? Is it "admissible evidence at trial," or facts "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" or something else?

What is the definition of "proof" that the resident Zodiac experts and board moderators apply to evidence as requisite to any conclusions that a suspect should be investigated by the authorities in an effort to close this case?

For example, coincidence or a series of coincidences that by themselves might not be admissible at trial or might not be sufficiently probative to constitute proof of an element of a crime or identity of a perpetrator might nevertheless be enough to lead to further inquiry that could produce admissible evidence. Therefore, are such things out of bounds for discussion here, or grounds for ridicule or dismissal?

Thanks in advance to anyone who wishes to assist me in addressing those threshold questions. If I have missed threads that specifically address those questions, I apologize and ask that you kindly direct me to the relevant posts. If I have posted this in the wrong forum, I apologize and plead the ignorance of a raw newcomer to your forum.

[morf13]

Welcome Gun!

There is a top secret section where you can privately discuss any suspects without search engines finding it or non members reading it. As far as what constitutes "evidence" for suspects, technically it would be prints, DNA etc, and to a lesser extent, hand writing. But building a circumstantial case with a suspect is a start for sure. Any questions, just ask, there are a lot of great knowledgeable people here

[ophion1031]

Coinicidences definitely would not be considered evidence enough to get a trial, but these coincidences can lead to gathering the proper evidence, like you said. If you browse through the board, you will see thousands of coincidental things tied to certain suspects. It hasn't been enough to prove anything YET. Providing such information to the hundreds of people who post here, you could get many different theories or ideas that may lead to something. You never know. One of the best things about this site is that there are all kinds of different personalities and each person here has a different way of looking at things.

[Tahoe27]

Welcome aboard!