Zodiackillersite.com

I have swung back and forward on this being a Zodiac crime, but feel the Confession Letter and Riverside Desktop Poem, despite the vile content they contain, come across as an immature teenager and empty threats, whereas his later material does not give me this impression. He appears to be addressing peer to peer in the Confession Letter, unlike his reference to boy, girl and his condescension in later material.

UKSpycatcher wrote:I have swung back and forward on this being a Zodiac crime, but feel the Confession Letter and Riverside Desktop Poem, despite the vile content they contain, come across as an immature teenager and empty threats, whereas his later material does not give me this impression. He appears to be addressing peer to peer in the Confession Letter, unlike his reference to boy, girl and his condescension in later material.

Looking at Riverside all the way to the 1974 letters, one can really see the evolution of Zodiac. I think if you look at the full communication and it's progression, you can see, not so much the similarities, but the evolution.

I agree with both of you, there seems to be an evolution in the letters from Riverside to those of Zodiac(assuming they were all authored by the same Guy),also, don't forget the Confession letter mention of 'making that call', which further matches Zodiac's habits. I don't know if Z killed Cheri, but looking at all of the Bates writing evidence when compared against Zodiac, seems hard to not think the same person did all of the writing.

Progression or development of some kind is likely, and has to be taken into consideration. So, yes - it would be foolish to rule out an earlier, possible communication simply because it didn't match the later ones on certain points.

The question is precisely what points, however.

The Confession author is intimate, personal. He talks about the warmth and firmness of breasts - and goes into disturbing details about body parts.

If this author is Z, he completely changes his style in later communications. This level or degree of intimacy and explicitness is NEVER reached again. The author of the "confirmed" Z letters hardly says a word about his victims beyond purely technical information.

Is this a likely development? From an abundance of "emotion" (for lack of a more precise or appropriate term) to an absence of the same?

I don't know - honestly. I'm just a rank amateur when it comes to this - but the difference is patent.

Norse wrote:If this author is Z, he completely changes his style in later communications. This level or degree of intimacy and explicitness is NEVER reached again. The author of the "confirmed" Z letters hardly says a word about his victims beyond purely technical information.

Interesting observation. Perhaps, if the confession writer knew Cheri, he regretted giving clues that might show a personal connection to Cheri, and later as Z decided that the less info the better

It depends on how you read it.

If you think Zodiac wrote, or typed it, then personally I think it makes sense. If you don't then it won't so you have to find a comfortable context for it.

The whole thing is like a mish-mash of his later ramblings. Lets see.

We have the alteration littered first part.

'The beautiful blond that babysits near the little store',
'The shapely blue eyed brownett who said no when I asked for a date',
'But maybe it will not be either'

Any of this sound familiar?

'And the lady from the provences who dress like a guy who doesn't cry'
'and the singurly abonmily the girl who never kissed. I don't think she would be missed'
'But it really doesn't matter whom you place upon the list'

Then we have.

'I waited in the library and followed her out after about two minuts'

'She died hard. She squirmed and shook as I choaked her, and her lips twiched. She let out a scream once and I kicked her head to shut her up. I plunged the knife into her and it broke. I then finished the job by cutting her throat' /


'ps. 2 cops pulled a goof abot 3 mins after I left the cab'

'The boy was origionaly in the frunt seat when I began firing. When I fired the first shot at his head he leaped backwards at the same time thus spoiling my aim. He ended up on the back seat then the floor in back thrashing out very violently with his legs; that's how I shot him in the knee'

There's more of course but morf has already detailed them here.

viewtopic.php?f=79&t=511

Point is I totally understand how we can 'interpret' that letter but once you line it up with Zodiacs other writings I don't think it's that different at all. And the similarities in the printing on the envelope, and that it was concerning a murder ... that Zodiac himself later references.

Let's try and not 'fiddle & fart around' too much. Eh?

IMO, Cheri was Z's first victim. The weapon of choice--a 4" blade knife--is, so to speak, amateurish; possibly, it was a pocket knife he carried regularly. The M.O. indicates the killer harbored an intense hatred toward Bates, verified by his CONFESSION rant. Evidently Bates spurned his advances "in years past"(?) so, to even the score, he dwelt on an asexual fondling of her breast.
If Z didn't murder Cheri Bates, obviously someone else did. Which leaves us with two killers, with eerily similar M.O.s. Far easier to suppose Z originated in Riverside, and migrated to the Bay Area. If not, what happened to the guy in Riverside? Are we to suppose such a publicity hound quietly retired? It may be he suffered a well-deserved untimely death. What now? A Bay Area resident discovering and copying, years later, essential elements of Mr. Riverside's M.O.?

traveller1st wrote:
'The beautiful blond that babysits near the little store',
'The shapely blue eyed brownett who said no when I asked for a date',
'But maybe it will not be either'

Any of this sound familiar?

Sure. But how is this to be understood? That he was so heavily influenced by The Mikado that it pervaded everything he wrote? Well, it didn't - we know that. There are no apparent Mikado references in most of his letters, only a select few.

Is it deliberate, then? A clue to his identity? I can easily buy that: He's the high executioner, killing moral transgressors - that actually fits. More or less. But if this is correct, he was Z - much the same Z who struck again in '68 and went public, as it were, in '69 - back in '66 too. The identity or persona was there. And yet he makes no reference to this, doesn't call himself Zodiac, doesn't mention Bates as one of his "collected slaves" when he appears on the scene as the cipher slayer a few years later. * Doesn't write the Bates date on the car door either.

* Started collecting slaves in Dec '68 - that's what he says. Do we believe him? Well...not really. But is there any great reason for him not to take credit for Bates, if Bates was - in fact - a Z crime? By which I mean not that the same man was behind it, but that the same persona (who was inspired by the Mikado and so forth) was behind it. And, yes, I know - of course - that he did take credit for it. But that was only after the Riverside connection made the news - and he was given the chance to add to his own notoriety by nodding and saying, sure, I did that thing down there - and plenty more too, crazy killer that I am, so just stay terrified, people.

I wasn't drawing a direct correlation to the Mikado. Although it might appear that way. No. What 'I think' I was pointing out was the whole 'theatrical' nature of the approach to the confession letter wording. It's almost lyrical, like a poem or a play. It's also a presentation of a personae. Very much like the Z we know from later years. That and the inclusion of an actual theatrical piece, albeit customized.

Then there's the habit of describing the crime. It's almost like a narration. That and the similar misspellings, the similar parts of the envelope writing (little as it is) and the second confession, if you will, in the LA TImes letter. There's a lot of similarities, attention (from Z himself) around this crime and its evidence. Why not mention Bates as part of the Zodiac tally? Well, why is that so strange? It's not like that wasn't part of his MO, or at least his presented MO. "I shall no longer announce". The other thing that might fit too in that regard is that he's reactive and not proactive on some occasions. This could be interpreted either way, which it is. I'm thinking about the Kathleen Johns incident here. He reacts to that being in the press and he does something specific here. He threatens her to control the leak of information. In the LA Times letter I see a similar tactic. There's no one to threaten so he tries to make the Riverside crime seem like just another statistic.

I know the KJ thing is iffy but honestly so is a lot of the stuff if we want it to be. What was he doing? Just sitting around waiting for random mystery events or murders to write in about? or was he reacting to things that were relevant because he was involved? As for not announcing the Riverside murder as part of his tally well, technically he apparently had a lot more, a hell of a lot more that weren't added. To me this is not unusual. He wants the focus to be on him and to do that he needs to control the flow of information and how it is presented. This guy is about to become a famous murderer and he had competition in that area so he's hardly going to send LE on a headstart investigation to So.Cal when he wants the attention focused on himself and what he's about to create in N.Cal. That wouldn't make sense neither from the pov of crime or a media campaign. The Riverside 'thing' was superfluous to the Zodiac creation.

I used to worry as well about why he hadn't mentioned it. Now it makes sense on several levels. To me anyway.

Dag MacLugh wrote:Far easier to suppose Z originated in Riverside, and migrated to the Bay Area. If not, what happened to the guy in Riverside? Are we to suppose such a publicity hound quietly retired? It may be he suffered a well-deserved untimely death. What now? A Bay Area resident discovering and copying, years later, essential elements of Mr. Riverside's M.O.?

I agree and good points. It is easier, and simpler. As much as anything can be with Zodiac.