Zodiackillersite.com

try as I might I can't find KQ's letter to the editor, can someone please link it?

Chet Desmond wrote:try as I might I can't find KQ's letter to the editor, can someone please link it?

Is this it?



From: viewtopic.php?t=1070&p=10218

thanks!

don't see much Z in there at all

Hi-
Anyone who knows Mr. Walter knows he NEVER writes out his profiles. Ever. He spent time reading over all the details of the crime scenes in 2004 and developed his profile. He spent as much time as he needed in order to do so and has spent plenty of time speaking to me over the past eleven years. We speak all the time, most recently last weekend. So I am not, and KQ was not, a "flash in the pan" suspect or mere passing thought for him. The reason I keep bringing him up is that he solves cases and we don't. Also, I know of no other suspect who has the backing of any of the elite profilers on the planet. If you had a suspect and Walter said he was Z, you'd throw that fact around, too. Why wouldn't you?

I stand behind the statement that Z was an individual who demonstrated unique behaviors and KQ demonstrated most if not all of them AND (more importantly) no other known suspect does as far as I know. I was told by a published author earlier this year that "lots of people write on Monarch sized paper." But that is not the question. The question is which Z suspects, a very small pool of the population, wrote on that type of paper? THAT is the important question to ask yourself.

If I am able to claim the best of the KNOWN suspects, I'll take that for now.

Lots of people write letters to the editor. But which Zodiac suspects did that, wrote on Monarch sized paper AND also wrote on cars? The air gets much thinner as you keep piling on the unique Z traits. If you believe that someone can demonstrate all of these unique Z traits, and be the only man who was spoken to by police after and of the Z crimes and still not be Z, then that is how you feel. I think there is fire creating this smoke.

Look, Walter was satisfied that had the police taken this case to court KQ fir the profile and his attorneys could not have developed an innocent explanation for the entirety of my circumstantial case.

I addressed the reason why KQ may have been seen by Fouke and then was out walking his dog a few minutes later. That was on this board and fairly recently.

SFPD distanced itself from its own 2002 DNA in 2009. If you know something about other DNA (not cryptic statements by an Insp. in 2013), please let me know. I know that as late as late 2013 SFPD was trying to get DNA out of some piece of evidence, probably Stine's shirt. But as of the SUMMER of 2013, I do not think they knew that had Z's DNA. As far as I know, the current DNA from letters that were not licked cannot rule anyone out. There are PLENTY of threads on this.

You have beaten me down and forced me to reveal something I was trying to save for another venue. I have never made this piece of info public before. I showed Fouke a photo of KQ from 1971 several years ago ad his only reservation (after saying he had the "right chin" and the "right hairline") was that KQ looked T-O-O Y-O-U-N-G to have been the man he saw that night. So KQ definitely was not too OLD looking. Stop saying he was "too old!" I obviously don't agree with Fouke. Lindsey Robbins has NO such reservations when he looked at a photo of KQ. The point is that just because KQ was 50, he didn't have to look 50. I keep saying that there is a big difference between chronological age and apparent age...how old someone looks to you, as opposed to what is on their birth certificate.

Mike

Chet-

Oy. How about the specter of young people lying dead and wounded in the street? That is what had happened at Lake Herman just six months earlier. How about his issues with young people--militants and lawbreakers (AKA student protesters), the same kind of people you'd find in lover's lanes? How about the reference to the Chron willing to print anything that sells more newspapers? Remind you of the Z letters at all that definitely increased circulation? How about the irony of a man who enriched himself selling VW Beetles railing against Hitler, who helped design them? He hated Hitler but was willing to sell "Hitler's car." Z kind of liked irony.

Mike

mike_r wrote:I stand behind the statement that Z was an individual who demonstrated unique behaviors and KQ demonstrated most if not all of them AND (more importantly) no other known suspect does as far as I know. I was told by a published author earlier this year that "lots of people write on Monarch sized paper." But that is not the question. The question is which Z suspects, a very small pool of the population, wrote on that type of paper? THAT is the important question to ask yourself.

Isn't this a type of selection bias, though? Surely others can pick out the "best" Z-like qualities of their favorite suspects, and demand the same standard be applied to KQ with those very same qualities.

Consider the bank that was robbed by a man with red shoes. Let's say he was also wearing a blue baseball cap. You favorite suspect is Fred who has red shoes. Mine is Ted who has a blue baseball cap. You demand to know which suspects have red shoes, and since none can be produced, Fred wins. I demand to know which suspects had blue caps, and since none can be produced, Ted wins.

Oh geez, I goofed. Kent State was in 1970 not 1969

in any case, it seems more plausible that KQ was referring to street protests rather than a lovers lane murder months earlier.

How about the irony of a man who enriched himself selling VW Beetles railing against Hitler, who helped design them? He hated Hitler but was willing to sell "Hitler's car." Z kind of liked irony.

It's reasonable that a European man who came of age in the 30s would bring up Hitler in times of social upheaval.

doranchak wrote:

mike_r wrote:I stand behind the statement that Z was an individual who demonstrated unique behaviors and KQ demonstrated most if not all of them AND (more importantly) no other known suspect does as far as I know. I was told by a published author earlier this year that "lots of people write on Monarch sized paper." But that is not the question. The question is which Z suspects, a very small pool of the population, wrote on that type of paper? THAT is the important question to ask yourself.

Isn't this a type of selection bias, though? Surely others can pick out the "best" Z-like qualities of their favorite suspects, and demand the same standard be applied to KQ with those very same qualities.

Consider the bank that was robbed by a man with red shoes. Let's say he was also wearing a blue baseball cap. You favorite suspect is Fred who has red shoes. Mine is Ted who has a blue baseball cap. You demand to know which suspects have red shoes, and since none can be produced, Fred wins. I demand to know which suspects had blue caps, and since none can be produced, Ted wins.

Exactly. I see the war of KQ and Sullivan coming on...

Seriously though. All that is good stuff, but it doesn't make one Zodiac. I'm actually a bit surprised a professional profiler would stake that claim based off that stuff. I would like to know what this man thought Zodiac's past was like--the type of life in led in order to kill. And, what was KQ's motive? He had a lot to lose and it would be VERY risky to kill Paul in his own backyard where anyone could have seen him. WHY?

There's another profiler (posted on this site)that thinks Z was a paranoid schizophrenic, poor, withdrawn and alone. It proves different profilers have differing opinions

I agree with doranchak's point above.

The fact that KQ used monarch sized paper is interesting. Just like it's interesting that, say, Sullivan worked at the library. Or that Ted K actually killed people. Plenty of proposed suspects have something in that vein which no other proposed suspect can match. But the argument, if we can call it that, is seriously flawed. It presupposes that Z had to have been one of the known and proposed “POIs” people have promoted over the years.

If we're looking in a limited – but perfectly artificial – pool of proposed suspects for the one guy who fits the bill the most, well, I'm sure we can narrow it down to one “winner” based on whatever criteria we decide on. But – I'm tempted to say – so what? Who's to say Z is in that pool to begin with?

No disrespect to Mike – his case obviously doesn't rest on that argument alone, and it's more of a general point anyway, not specific to KQ.