Zodiackillersite.com

mike_r wrote:Hi-

It is not for us to like or dislike suspects. It is for us to find the person who was Z. And only Z behaved like Z. If you don't like KQ, who can you name who shared Z's unique behaviors, like the ones I listed? I am waiting for that suspect to come along. I don't think anyone can even name another suspect who they can prove (like I can) ever touched a piece of Monarch sized paper. When I can show that KQ shared those behaviors, you can say you don't like him but who else did what Z did that makes an even better suspect?

There used to be a handwriting thread here that had KQ's Soc Sec application but I don't know if it is still up. He never hand printed anything he sent me.

Mike

Sort of getting a little bit over the "well, Walter said! And you are all idiots!" vein here. You told me in an earlier reply to go read "the Murder Room" which I have long ago, and I do respect Richard's profiling. But you have not provided us a complete profile written by him, and from my understanding he hasn't spent much time with the case. I mean, if he wrote a comprehensive profile, then that's one thing. Well, where is it? If he just offhandedly said, "yeah, this is the guy, or this sort of guy", well, then I understand why there isn't more documentation and YOU should understand if we don't swallow this whole.

As much as I considered your point of view and even agreed with it, I don't like the insulting tone you throw at towards anyone who questions you. I don't think that's very becoming and its quite dictatorial. I don't care if I am some lowly poster, or anyone's status on the food chain. This isn't a country club. WE ALL want to catch Z, and discourse is important for that. Choking off dissension in a flurry of "Walter! Walter! Don't question me!" is tiresome. You have done it often enough to make me realize there is a wall beyond which you refuse to hear anything. And that is disappointing. We all have our own minds here and if you want us to have a civil discourse on this, that's one thing- but I am beginning to think that you simply DON'T. Well and good. I'm a big girl. I can take insults, but when it is couched in terms of choking off dissent, that's what bothers me. I am a stubborn snotnose about that stuff. Can't stand it. Its why I chose this board over others, to avoid that kind of poor sportsmanship.

Truth stands on its own. It shouldn't have to be accompanied at every turn with "you guys are just amateurs". Til I see Richard Walter's profile, which I recall explicitly asking you for a year ago, I reserve my right to disagree with you. Because I am not convinced.

And yesh that's speculation and just my opinion and how dare I question someone who blah blah blah. I get it.

But its called manners bro.

I second what MM wrote. As much as I think KQ has more circumstantial evidence linking him to Z than any other POI I have ever seen discussed, there are still issues with him; physical description, age, no match with DNA, or simply expaining how he is murdering a cabbie one minute and a few minutes later he is walking his dog. I think all Ophion and MM are trying to do is offer possible scenerios that could possibly tie KQ with FM. I understand Mike's frustrations all the same. He has so much that links KQ, but there's just something more to it. We can see that, but he refuses to see it. If Manson could get others to do his killing for him, than why couldn't KQ?

not picking on mike, but it's emblematic of anyone who has a long-held poi - you hit a point where there's no more information that points to your poi so you just push harder at the stuff that looks good, circumstantial or not. i think mike has a good poi in mr x but it's not a lock. it's someone who factually has a lot of circumstantial stuff that seems suspicious but there's just no smoking gun.

mike has gotten closer then many..you have to almost entertain some multiple Z thought with X though...and yes age is a legitimate issue..that being said I do Like X a lot but was X the Z?..for now nothing will hold to cross examination in court,,but X is damn interesting..mike is still digging and I always have liked his posts..

Maybe LE set it up to see if Z would notice it and write another letter. Perhaps they were attempting to coax him back to see if they could catch him or at least know his whereabouts? Who knows, perhaps they expected him to write back angry that they would associate him with the KKK movement or needing an accomplice? I kind of feel like it was bait for him, but then again I'm just basing this off of the personal ad. I don't really know anything about the men people have been associating with the ad, but I do know the day before an article was released about Zodiac.

Or it was a hoax

Jmo

mike_r wrote:Hi-

It is not for us to like or dislike suspects. It is for us to find the person who was Z. And only Z behaved like Z. If you don't like KQ, who can you name who shared Z's unique behaviors, like the ones I listed? I am waiting for that suspect to come along. I don't think anyone can even name another suspect who they can prove (like I can) ever touched a piece of Monarch sized paper. When I can show that KQ shared those behaviors, you can say you don't like him but who else did what Z did that makes an even better suspect?

There used to be a handwriting thread here that had KQ's Soc Sec application but I don't know if it is still up. He never hand printed anything he sent me.

Mike

All of those things seem like qualities a "partner" would have.

mike_r wrote: He is the one who wrote the letter to the Chron.
He is the one who lived near the PH crime scene and was spoken to by AP after the Stine murder. He is the one who lied to me about his whereabouts that night at our 2006 tete-a-tete.
He is the one who wrote to me TWICE on Monarch sized paper. (Again, I am begging someone to tell me which other suspect ever wrote
even one letter in their lives on Monarch sized paper, so I can end my delusion of thinking that NO OTHER suspect can be proven to have even known what Monarch sized paper was.)
KQ had the car entered in Riverside on October 30, 1966. KQ is the one who used to autograph cars in felt tip pen. KQ fits the power-assertive profile of Zodiac.

And as for KQ being an "Imperial Wizard" or some such thing, prove it! Saying someone *could* have been something is useless. Lots of people could be or could have been lots of things...

Mike

Can I ask a couple questions? Q wrote a letter to the paper, one in particular that you personally thought, read like Z,is that the basic premise? If so,lots of People wrote letters to the Editor, we have a whole thread here of letters to the Editor, many of them read like Z.

He lived near the PH crime scene. So what, there may be multiple suspects that did that we just are not aware of.

He wrote on monarch paper,so what? Lots of people did,that's why they made it and sold it.

He had a car entered in Riverside on the day of Cheri's murder. Trying to connect your Suspect to Riverside...I totally understand it because I believe that Z lived in Riverside. But how does that get his writing on a desk in the RCC Library? Did he have cars entered in Riverside when the confession letter was mailed, or the Bates had to die letters?

Lastly, why have we not seen handwriting samples of your Suspect? Unless I am missing something, besides an autograph or two,I am the only person that has posted handwriting of MrX,and it didn't lool much like Z's writing. So,again, do you mean to tell me you don't have writing for Mr X with all of your years of research? I'd like to see it.

PinkPhantom wrote:Maybe LE set it up to see if Z would notice it and write another letter.

Yes, that's a possibility. I think it's more likely the article published the previous day was a ruse of sorts, though – an attempt to make Z communicate again.

And then some crackpot or joker responded in the form of that ad. It's very hard to look past the fact that the ad follows on the very next day. I think there's a connection there – which means it has nothing to do with Fred M. Or any other proposed Z suspect.

Just my opinion, as per usual. But I suspect the ad is just another red herring.

There is also a problem with this argument:

- You cannot find a better suspect, therefore mine is correct.

Mike, you use this argument a lot. The absence of a "better" suspect does not automatically make yours correct, even if your suspect truly IS the best of them all.

For example, a man with red shoes robs a bank. The police scour the entire town and only ONE man is found who owns red shoes, so they arrest him, because he's the "best" suspect. But the actual perp lives in a neighboring town.

So, you frequently rely on two problematic arguments: 1) Appeal to authority ("A professional who is never wrong agrees with me"), and 2) The absence of a better alternative makes the current selection correct. Argument #1 is nice but the profile could still be wrong. Argument #2 might help with limiting the selections of suspects but you still have to get past reasonable doubt.

Norse wrote:

PinkPhantom wrote:Maybe LE set it up to see if Z would notice it and write another letter.

Yes, that's a possibility. I think it's more likely the article published the previous day was a ruse of sorts, though – an attempt to make Z communicate again.

And then some crackpot or joker responded in the form of that ad. It's very hard to look past the fact that the ad follows on the very next day. I think there's a connection there – which means it has nothing to do with Fred M. Or any other proposed Z suspect.

Just my opinion, as per usual. But I suspect the ad is just another red herring.

Agreed 100% Norse.