Zodiackillersite.com

Tahoe27 wrote:Morf...

Not to beat a dead horse here (and I hope we all can stay focused on the History Channel documentary, or move to previous threads), but a detective magazine wrote all about Cheri and shared the Confession Letter publicly in 1969.

Morrill: Zodiac wrote the Riverside stuff
Shimoda: Zodiac didn't write the Riverside stuff
FBI: Inconclusive

Sorry, not to get off topic, but let's touch all of the bases. I forgot about the 69 mag article, but that too spells the word the right way in the article itself(shows a drawing of the misspelled word).

And let's give Morrill some credit. Would you give the guy his due that while writing is not an exact science, he was pretty accomplished and good at what he did? I hope we can. So Zodiac, without any handwriting to view(because they don't show ANY of the Bates case writer's handwriting for Zodiac to steal and use)??? And he happens to be such a great forger with no samples of the Riverside writer's writing to use that he can fool a very respected and skilled docs examiner??? Is that what we are saying???


And we've got to stop saying things like 'the FBI findings were inconclusive'. Because there's more to it than that, the part that follows it states very clearly that there is reason to believe that one single author was responsible for all the Zodiac writings & the Riverside writings. For all of the above reasons, the Riverside writings are officially considered to be Zodiac's writing by Zodiac investigators. I have to remember to stop trying to convince people that the official stance by LE is correct, and just side with them and not debate doubters.



Sorry for the rant, back on topic to the History Channel series.

To be clear, I fully believe that Z wrote the "Bates had to die letters" just not the Confession letter. I don't think there is a way to compare the block printing on the Confession envelope to Z's writing. Morrill did match the "Bates had to die" envelopes to Z, which makes perfect sense to me. After that, we'll just agree to disagree if necessary.

Mike

Mike, don't you think it is highly unusual for anyone to use little circles to dot the I's ?

and then there is the similar phrases and misspellings, so wouldn't you have to conclude that there is at least a 50/50 chance that Z
wrote the confession letter, especially since you believe Z wrote the "Bates had to die" letters ?

morf13 wrote:And we've got to stop saying things like 'the FBI findings were inconclusive'.

Why? That is what THEY wrote. It is what it is. It means it could be, or not.

Tahoe27 wrote:

morf13 wrote:And we've got to stop saying things like 'the FBI findings were inconclusive'.

Why? That is what THEY wrote. It is what it is. It means it could be, or not.

But there were characteristics that led them to conclude that 1 writer could have done all of the letters, I guess we both are right

monarch wrote:

Screenshot (356).png

Mike, don't you think it is highly unusual for anyone to use little circles to dot the I's ?

and then there is the similar phrases and misspellings, so wouldn't have to conclude that there is at least a 50/50 chance that Z
wrote the confession letter, especially since you believe Z wrote the Bates had to die letters ?

Again, I don't want to derail this thread, and we can all continue some friendly debate in the Bates writing section. To me, it seems as if the most logical explanation would be if Z wrote the Bates had to die letters, then he wrote them all. They were all identified as coming from Z. Would there really be two disturbed writers authoring taunting letters in Riverside at the same time?

morf13 wrote:

monarch wrote:

Screenshot (356).png

Mike, don't you think it is highly unusual for anyone to use little circles to dot the I's ?

and then there is the similar phrases and misspellings, so wouldn't have to conclude that there is at least a 50/50 chance that Z
wrote the confession letter, especially since you believe Z wrote the Bates had to die letters ?

Again, I don't want to derail this thread, and we can all continue some friendly debate in the Bates writing section. To me, it seems as if the most logical explanation would be if Z wrote the Bates had to die letters, then he wrote them all. They were all identified as coming from Z. Would there really be two disturbed writers authoring taunting letters in Riverside at the same time?

It seems back then Cal was crazyville, lots and lots of them

Let's just solve the dang thing and we'll know for sure. Maybe...

Tahoe27 wrote:Let's just solve the dang thing and we'll know for sure. Maybe...

Maybe after the 5 part series, it will be solved?? Somehow, I don't think it will be, but we can hope

morf13 wrote: To me, it seems as if the most logical explanation would be if Z wrote the Bates had to die letters, then he wrote them all. They were all identified as coming from Z. Would there really be two disturbed writers authoring taunting letters in Riverside at the same time?

You mean it sounds crazy that Z was writing the Bates letters in Riverside, a second writer writing the Confession, years later Z copies elements from inside detective, only to have that source letter later linked to him, but even though he was in Riverside writing letters, a second writer a few blocks down was really the one responsible...

...or it was just the same guy.