[quote="Welsh Chappie"]BayArea60's
"I think its only fair I ask you.... What the hell are you talking about?"
I was talking about what you stated, don't get your blood pressure all wound up, but you seem here to be wanting to change what you said....You make statements that are no more than your theory, but you present them as what Z is asking us what connections his wishes us to make. this is absurd. And to prove how absurd your initial post was, you now change your wording. Please. What's all this false and erroneous claims stuff as though I'd based anything I had said on a claim false or otherwise?
I never said false and erroneous claims, so what the hell are you talking about? What I stated was Z had a clear intent, you simply missed it, and made up statements as to what Z knew and didn't know. And what he didn't mention you know all about it.
Here is what you stated and what I was replying to.....Your words so please be able to understand them."I am the murderer of the taxi driver over by Washington and Maple Street last night. This on face value has no clear intent".....
And to that I stated I think you missed his clear intent
Then you state....."what Z is doing is asking the readers to come to the conclusion that Z doesn't know that area well at all because he doesn't know the actual street name of Cherry " .
[color=#FF0000]Where do you get this???? Z isn't asking anyone anything or to come to any conclusion. He knew where the park was, and even if he didn't go into the park, shows he knew there was a park there, and he knew how to get there, that shows me a thorough knowledge of the area he is in. Very unlike what you're adding in here. Your theory doesn't hold up. He knew PH, he proved it. Because he doesn't mention Cherry doesn't mean he didn't "know" (as you stated) he was on Cherry (that's your assumption), and Z didn't ask you, me, or anyone else to come to that conclusion, again those are your thoughts, not Z's. And then you stated...."He's not going to ask straight out and directly, 'I am the killer of the taxi driver over by Maple, I apologize that I don't know the specific street name and that is due to the fact? I am not local to that area, nor have I ever been there", " If he said that then "everyone" would "clearly" see what he was saying directly and become highly suspect of such a claim".....
And what is Z's claim???? "I am the murderer of the Taxi driver over by Washington and Maple Street last night"...that's his claim...." You state that "everyone" then would "clearly see" and become highly suspect of his claim. And I say that's nonsense speak, because of the shirt he sent with the letter. No one (not everyone as you stated) no one, would be suspect of his claim, (the murder),and no one was. But you state the opposite. I was talking about Zodiac's use of words, or his lack thereof, in his describing himself as the killer of the cab driver 'over by W'tn & Mpl streets' and saying that wording it like this seems to be him wanting to imply that he doesn't know the name of Cherry St so he's giving us a suggestion that he is probably not local but can't come out direct by saying that as it's obvious then that he's trying to distance himself from, and having any connection with, Pacific Heights and that would cause many to be extremely suspicious.
You responded with: Who would be suspicious of what he is saying when he included the shirt?
And what I stated is correct, his statement is "he is the murderer of the taxi driver over by Washington and Maple". That's Z's statement. And what you just stated here is nothing like what you originally stated....You told all what Z is asking and what conclusion he wanted us to come to, totally different then what you write above. Now you state that "it seems Z is implying", totally different, isn't it, then what I replied to, totally different from what you wrote, and you stated folks would become suspect of Z's claim, but now you drop 'the claim' and that it would just make them suspicious. C'mon....
I don't see what him adding the shirt pieces has to do with his knowing or not knowing the name of Cherry Street.
But again you didn't say that, you stated Z didn't 'know' Cherry street, not if he did know Cherry Street or not, as you're stating here. You have no knowledge of what Z knew, so don't say it. It can mis-direct folks on the boards. Yes, I would agree that adding the evidential pieces of shirt would help to deceive people into the idea that the man writing this letter is the same man who shot Stine and the reason is evident, he's added the evidence and this evidence is something only Paul's killer could have possession of. That again goes to my point about Zodiac offering the people a suggestion that the may want to put two and two together as he's asking and arrive at Six as the conclusion. He knows and is very aware that by sending the shirt with blood in the letter that people will instantly believe this to be proof positive that the writer is the killer.
In reality,
(but you realize the investigator's don't consider this reality, you never follow the statement "In reality, with "If") if there were one writing the letters, the other out doing the murders then how difficult or unlikely is it for Killer Zodiac to pass Writer Zodiac the bits of evidence for Writer Zodiac to add in the next letter? What does that involve and is it unrealistic?
(The emotion that Z exhibits in his writing of the crimes he committed, would someone who didn't do the deeds show such emotion.?) That to me could make this theory unrealistic. What makes your theory realistic? Nothing, just a theory. "Z killer arrives at Z writers home. "Here, there's the bits of shirt to add in with the letter to make them all think it must obviously be the killer writing this because he's the only one who'd have Paul's shirt pieces."
After that you lose me completely lol.
"The log book should take away any confusion" What, it has a price list you mean?
This is why Z states over by Washington and Maple, cause that's what's in the log book. That's what the cops are going to find. Has nothing to do with Cherry or his knowledge, which he exhibited to any reasonable person's liking, without anyone making up scenarios and then telling us what Z is asking what his unwritten intentions are, like you know. Just deal with what he wrote, or be sure when you're presenting a theory, make it just that. You're making up scenarios, but presenting them as fact. Go back and read your own statements, ok. [color=#FF0000]
" Z never suggested something indirectly, he in fact was always direct"
"Ohh really? So referring to Stine as "The Taxi Driver" will be for the same reasons as he referred to Cherry as 'Over by Maple' wont it? That being, he did not know the name of Cherry Street, nor did he know the name of Mr Paul Stine. Yes that sounds right, he's just ran off with his wallet containing Paul drivers licence with photo, various cards and personal effects all of which clearly show his name and Zodiac doesn't know that his name was Paul? Yes that obviously correct because he took the wallet because he didn't want to know anything or look inside it, that sounds accurate does it?"
[color=#FF0000]So Z must write the way you in hindsight says he must or that discounts that he took Paul's wallet? And then you alone will tell us Z's intentions? Z doesn't refer to his victim's by name. So why would you assume he should when it comes to Paul? You'll find most serial's don't, cause the victims are things, their names would personalize them. Z not doing the items you wish he had doesn't prove what he knew or didn't know. But you wish to present your theories as factual. Read your original post, and then how you re-worded it here..... 
