Zodiackillersite.com

Kryten: Sir, you're a SMRRRRR HEEEEE
Rimmer: I'm a "SMRRRR HEEEE?"
Kryten: A complete and total one!

It's just the best. That and Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency.

Oh, boy., This is complete trash. First of all, it is a big assumption to say that Zodiac wrote the Confession. We don't know that, and while I don't agree with Kelleher and Van Nuys on their profile, their analysis of the differences between Z's letters and the Confession in TITZS strongly suggests two different authors. Second, we know that Z (if he did not kill Bates) very carefully studied and imitated the techniques of the Bates killer (overposting letters, automotive ruse on Johns, etc.). The text of the Confession was published in 1966 and was therefore available for all to see. Using those same words could easily be a homage by Z to the Riverside murderer. I've always warned about "chickens and eggs" in the Bates vs. Z cases. Which behavior came first and which could have been aped by Z? And to compare two words and say they've made a strong link to Riverside seems to be overly dramatically interpreting the evidence.

BTW, they are feeding the Confession to their computer in order for them to get it to think like Z. Everyone knows the old saw, "Garbage in/garbage out."

If the entire show is this type of stuff, we'll be in for a long ride.

Mike

sandy betts wrote:I have been told by one if the investigators on the History Channel, that no one has BTK as a suspect on that show, that is "false information", so that needs to be cleared up. I know that that "false information" has turned many off from watching the show. I wasn't going to watch it because of that, but now I will up grade my TV package,just so I can watch the 5 part series.

Morf , do you know anything about why they are announcing that only one of the Zodiac cypher's was unbroken? Sorry if that has been addressed already.

Great. This info came from Voigt's board and I fell for it. Nice work tapping into sources over there. I'm relieved it is a *legit* suspect like Kane, lol. Now we can all rest easy.

Just throwing in my 2 cents with this from my experience...

I think if there is going to be a 5-part series about the Zodiac case, it's inevitable suspects we aren't fond of (out flat out think are ridiculous) are going to be a part of the program. How far they take it is what is making me grit my teeth, but we'll see where they go with it. Again, a lot of these people involved aren't as up to par with us--which is why they bring more knowledgeable folks in. But, they do mix it up with what makes people watch--the hype. A lot of good people put a lot of hard work to make this production happen.

I know for a fact "some" involved shared their knowledge of some things while possibly disagreeing with the "who/what/when/where/why", but the information is put out there for those to come to their own conclusions...even if that means less seasoned investigators and the viewing public.

While I agree with you wholeheartedly (Mike R) when it comes to the Bates case, and don't think that stuff is of any new revelation (to us here), it's a part of what draws people in...take it or leave it, ya know?

The show is for entertainment, but there is VALID investigating going on as well. Respectable detectives who have already had access to things none of us (or anyone I know of) has. The code work is fascinating, in my opinion, and we have to find out the real from the fake...and this process could help do that to save wasted time in the future.

Well, I think that what is bad is that they revealed what they are thinking and how they approached the case/letters. It seems flawed from the outset. But let's hope that RPD has some useful info to share this time around, not the "42 stab wounds" or the misleading melodrama surrounding their pet suspect they told us about in 2000 or so.

Mike

Riverside stuff might not ALL be shared on this documentary, for the viewing public, but the investigators were privy to reports. There is the show, and behind the show.

Well, it will be a start if they don't share any disinformation, as they did in 2000.

Mike

mike_r wrote:Oh, boy., This is complete trash. First of all, it is a big assumption to say that Zodiac wrote the Confession. We don't know that, and while I don't agree with Kelleher and Van Nuys on their profile, their analysis of the differences between Z's letters and the Confession in TITZS strongly suggests two different authors. Second, we know that Z (if he did not kill Bates) very carefully studied and imitated the techniques of the Bates killer (overposting letters, automotive ruse on Johns, etc.). The text of the Confession was published in 1966 and was therefore available for all to see. Using those same words could easily be a homage by Z to the Riverside murderer. I've always warned about "chickens and eggs" in the Bates vs. Z cases. Which behavior came first and which could have been aped by Z? And to compare two words and say they've made a strong link to Riverside seems to be overly dramatically interpreting the evidence.

BTW, they are feeding the Confession to their computer in order for them to get it to think like Z. Everyone knows the old saw, "Garbage in/garbage out."

If the entire show is this type of stuff, we'll be in for a long ride.

Mike

Actually, they will discuss something that I have been saying for years, (Carmel the computer finds it )that essentially ties the Confession letter to the Zodiac letters(besides the handwriting link already established). I do find it odd that some people try and link their pet Z suspects to Riverside, then later are dismissive of Riverside links to Zodiac.

Hi Morf,

No. It is not "odd" at all if you are talking about me. My susp was definitely down there that weekend. I just don't think Z killed Bates or wrote the Confession but was INFLUENCED by her murder and later wrote the Bates Had to Die letters. I don't think that is too hard to understand at all. I am not at all dismissive of the Riverside links to Z. Not in any way. I just look at those links differently than you do...and you didn't need "Carmel" or whatever to notice twich and squirm. Geez, just use your eyes. And if Z did write the Confession, it does not change a thing for me. But the entire tenor of that letter is different from what Z ever wrote. Not even close. But who knows? Maybe they will convince me that I am wrong. Let's see what they got....

Mike