Zodiackillersite.com

I used the think the word "shall" wasn't used all that often, but in actuality, it is and, was more-so then. Think of the movies...everyone spoke quite properly.

Now that I know the Confession letter was published in January of '69....anything is possible.

Tahoe27 wrote:I used the think the word "shall" wasn't used all that often, but in actuality, it is and, was more-so then. Think of the movies...everyone spoke quite properly.

Now that I know the Confession letter was published in January of '69....anything is possible.

As you already know, we will simply agree to disagree. I would love to know how we know that the word Shall was used more back then as opposed to now, not that it's used now at all, but I doubt back then either.

Let's see how it was used:

"Mom, I shall be going to the market, do you need any eggs?"

"I take my driver's test next week, and by this weekend, I shall be driving"

"I shall save lots of money in my piggy bank"

Seriously, how often is this word used(or used in 69) in every day writing. It simply wasn't. Again, save legal mumbo jumbo in official or legal materials, or in literary work, this word is and was, not used a lot in America in the last 50 years.

morf13 wrote:

Tahoe27 wrote:I used the think the word "shall" wasn't used all that often, but in actuality, it is and, was more-so then. Think of the movies...everyone spoke quite properly.

Now that I know the Confession letter was published in January of '69....anything is possible.

As you already know, we will simply agree to disagree. I would love to know how we know that the word Shall was used more back then as opposed to now, not that it's used now at all, but I doubt back then either.

Let's see how it was used:

"Mom, I shall be going to the market, do you need any eggs?"

"I take my driver's test next week, and by this weekend, I shall be driving"

"I shall save lots of money in my piggy bank"

Seriously, how often is this word used(or used in 69) in every day writing. It simply wasn't. Again, save legal mumbo jumbo in official or legal materials, or in literary work, this word is and was, not used a lot in America in the last 50 years.

One thing to note (something I learned from all my english classes) is

that people do not always speak a sentence the same way that they

would write it. So they may use the word "shall" when forming a written

sentence but not use "shall" when speaking.

Grammatically speaking the word shall denotes 1st person singular, as in the word I, or 1st person plural, as in the word we. While the word will denotes 2nd person singular and plural, as in the word you.

The emphasis on "correct" grammar has declined. Some grammar rules have been streamlined. Many teachers back in the day were absolute sticklers for 100% correct grammar. They valued correctness over being able to convey a thought or idea via the written word.

Zodiac's use of the word shall could simply mean that he had a teacher at some point in his education that was total grammar Nazi and the correct use of shall was driven home to him for whatever reason.

morf13 wrote:

Tahoe27 wrote:I used the think the word "shall" wasn't used all that often, but in actuality, it is and, was more-so then. Think of the movies...everyone spoke quite properly.

Now that I know the Confession letter was published in January of '69....anything is possible.

As you already know, we will simply agree to disagree. I would love to know how we know that the word Shall was used more back then as opposed to now, not that it's used now at all, but I doubt back then either.

Let's see how it was used:

"Mom, I shall be going to the market, do you need any eggs?"

"I take my driver's test next week, and by this weekend, I shall be driving"

"I shall save lots of money in my piggy bank"

Seriously, how often is this word used(or used in 69) in every day writing. It simply wasn't. Again, save legal mumbo jumbo in official or legal materials, or in literary work, this word is and was, not used a lot in America in the last 50 years.

I believe it would be more like: "Shall we go to the grocery store" - I still say that all the time..."shall we?"

I agree with the others as far as the writing goes. Probably written more than spoken, but throwing a shall in ones verbiage isn't out of the question. I think it has more effect in writing.

Yes, could be anything, I suppose.

But bmichelle makes a good point. People don't write the way they talk – not even today, with more types of ungrammatical and or/informal written language than ever, due to text speak and whatnot. Nobody actually says CYLTR or RFLMAO. Well, maybe someone does. But those are still mainly written forms.

The Confession writer is pretty formal in a sense. Or at least pretty grave in his tone. The use of shall in that particular context doesn't strike me as out of place. Some people overdo it when they're about to write something – weighing their words too carefully, ending up sounding all stiff and awkward.

morf13 wrote:Maybe he knew Cheri, thus, used her name. Maybe he did not know the Z victims, assuming that the confession letter writer and Z are one and the same

Yes, maybe he did.

But then we have another problem on our hands, IMO. He kills someone he knows. In rage. Going nuts with a weapon which looks like it wasn't brought along for the purpose. Extremely personal. Or – he doesn't kill her, but inserts himself into the case via the letter (but still knowing her).

I don't know which is worse, so to speak, but both possibilities seem very problematic to me. Because if this is Z, we know for a fact what he did afterwards: Two years later he killed a couple of kids, execution style, highly impersonal. Took no credit immediately, which is arguably odd if he had already established himself as an attention seeking letter writer.

Then half a year later he kills another couple, in the same circumstances, again execution style – again nothing at all like Bates. And then he sends his first letter. Which is a proper three-part letter, unlike the Bates notes – which aren't a three-part letter at all. They're three notes, all with the same content, namely an extremely brief message, which are sent to a newspaper, a police department and the victim's father. Z's – actual – three-part letter is sent to three newspapers, no police or relatives involved. It contains a cipher, the content of which is a lengthy rant about himself.

The Confession author's main focus is his victim. She was stupid, she was attractive, her breast was firm, but he had to kill her, she had to pay for the brush offs. She's important, he names her, it's because of her he has to confess.

Z's letter is a mission statement. Or an obnoxious, taunting sort of declaration. The beginning of a grotesque publicity stunt. There's nothing there about the victims themselves other than technicalities to prove he killed them.

Sure, it's possible he simply didn't know them – but did know Bates, and hence the difference. I'm not sure this explanation will suffice, though. If it was him all along, then he progressed or developed (or whatever one wants to call it) from the deeply personal to the completely opposite.

Either he progressed from rage killer (most likely knowing his victim), or he progressed from simply taking credit for Bates' death (in a certain manner). From A or B then – to Z. The question is how plausible this movement actually is.

For me personally, I think Cheri knew the guy who killed her. To what extent, I do not know.

Would the Confession letter writer truly "confess". Would he make it so LE knew this much info about him? I don't know...

Of course people she knew would be the first LE would look at. Random killings are much more rare. Certainly the letter writer knew this, but would he acknowledge "brush offs" if this guy might have been known to her best friends or family? Or, could it be this person figured their was another suspect who might better fit that bill--giving LE a reason to check out certain "someones"?

"Miss Bates" was written many times in the paper. The Confession letter writer, of course, didn't have to know her, but it wouldn't surprise me if he/she did--but didn't kill her.

We also have typed letters and handwritten letters. I find that odd.

Tahoe27 wrote:We also have typed letters and handwritten letters. I find that odd.

I might have too at one point and I guess it depends, as usual, to what hypothesis you subscribe. Assuming the letter writer and typist were the same and they were responsible for Cheri Jo's murder that says to me they were local and concerned about being identified. For one they carboned the typed letters but why the difference and increased risk of the hand written stuff. Doesn't one cancel the other out to some degree? The simple answer is yes but simple is a luxury unfortunately.

If this was a case we were looking at independent of Zodiac then perhaps, rightly or wrongly, we could just say some typed, some 'scrawled', probably different person. The problem is it's not separate from the Zodiac case and when that's taken into consideration then perhaps there are reasons for the difference in that context. Maybe this was his beginning. His transnational communication phase. The handwritten notes are heavily disguised and short almost like he's testing the water. The one thing that makes the Zodiac case what it is, are his communications and that they are handwritten so the notes in this case aren't out of character but the fact that they are so basic, comparatively, suggests to me an early stage of his progression and so I'm not that surprised at the typed ones as well. I don't think it was his preference though but rather an insurance necessity at that stage. I don't think he was that comfortable with it but was trying it out, so to speak. Personally I just think he found it too laborious and restricting and as such decided to tentatively introduce the written communications as well at that stage.

Zodiac wanted to 'write' and to a degree show off his disguise skills. I think he did that throughout the letters and I think he was already working on those skills at the time of the CJB communications. I think these short notes were simply hurried. Zodiac tried different things and he chopped and changed how he killed, who he killed and how he communicated. So these two different approaches in a way actually fit his MO. I mean he only did the hood thing once and in a way that's kinda comparable to the typed letters. A one-off, time consuming ... 'Thing'. He didn't send evidence with every letter nor did he send a cipher with every one but he did do it.

The short version of all that waffle is ... different isn't out of character for Zodiac. Brevity ... my natural enemy.

No, he certainly isn't the most consistent of murderers. So, there's that.

I still feel he's pretty consistent throughout the series of letters beginning with the three-part and concluding with...what? Well, that's debatable, I guess. But before the hiatus leading up to Exorcist. A string of letters (I don't include the cards, i.e. the ones which feature very little actual communication) in which it seems pretty clear to me that the same voice is heard, in pretty much the same way. And this string of letters can also be tied to crimes/scenes through context and in some cases direct proof. That's the core for me. The rest is possible – and perhaps necessary – to debate in all sorts of ways.

Just my take on it – or my way of narrowing down something it's possible to focus on. Others will have other ways and I have no problem with that.

Final point (a general one): It's possible that Bates' killer (and/or for that matter the Confession writer) knew her better than she knew him. That's classic enough. He felt he knew her, if you will – while she may not have considered him someone she knew at all. Part of the problem – for him.

She would have recognized him, probably, on the night – but he wouldn't necessarily have been someone her family or friends would have thought of as a possible suspect. Which means he could have flown under the radar, or at least not been an obvious suspect even though (if he wrote the Confession) he states plainly that he knew her. Just an idea.