Zodiackillersite.com

traveller1st wrote:
I know the KJ thing is iffy but honestly so is a lot of the stuff if we want it to be.

Most of it is iffy enough, clearly so, when looked at from the other side of the fence.

It's not difficult to argue that Riverside was Z, based on similarities, circumstances, statements on his part, etc. Same goes for Johns - or even Lass. There are similarities all over the place, including places where it's pretty unlikely that he played a part.

What do you focus on? Similarities or discrepancies? Is it a sounder strategy to simply include all the possibles - or to exclude all of them? Going down the latter road, you may find yourself without much to investigate - pretty much everything can be questioned, doubted, labeled a fake or a hoax.

Then again, if you include it all, you may be working from a terribly false assumption - and never progress past it.

Norse wrote:What do you focus on? Similarities or discrepancies? Is it a sounder strategy to simply include all the possibles - or to exclude all of them? Going down the latter road, you may find yourself without much to investigate - pretty much everything can be questioned, doubted, labeled a fake or a hoax.

Then again, if you include it all, you may be working from a terribly false assumption - and never progress past it.

This is the conundrum. One, in a way, I think the forum format actually handles as best it can. Some people look for the discrepancies and work out from them to see what else can possibly be verified as 'dodgy'. Others focus on the similarities and do likewise but to attempt to ascertain what is relevant. In the middle it's a battleground of hurt feelings and frustrations lol.

One thing's for sure. It's not a boring case.

For me, I feel like I have to look at it skeptically.

Can you imagine if LE DIDN'T? It's so much easier to try and disprove someone than prove some one was the perpetrator.

With Ross for example. LE could already know he was institutionalized during any one of Zodiac's crimes. Done....next.

While I know WE don't know these things and what I wrote above could very well be false, it could have been a simple task as to why Ross was checked off the list of suspects. Something as easy as that finger print., etc.

And what happens when someone's POI cannot be placed at any one of the possible Zodiac crimes? Will they give up on him as being Zodiac?

Because WE don't know what the cops know, we could be wasting a heck of a lot of time with many suspects. Does that mean we stop looking? No. We have no choice since we are not privy to the information, and that is unfortunate with these very old cold cases, but that's the way it is.

I think today, Toschi would change that statement. It seems they obviously didn't know who killed Cheri Jo....even now.

It's very hard to find the right balance – that's for sure. Take Ross, then, just as an example – he's been discussed plenty lately. Let's say that it's material to link Z to the desktop poem if Ross is to remain a viable suspect (not saying it IS absolutely material, but many seem to think it is).

What is the main argument here? Morrill concluded it was Z. He said it was unquestionably Z. That's not a bad argument to bring forth, given that Morrill was – undoubtedly – the foremost expert on Z's handwriting.

But if Morrill was infallible, then Ross can't possibly have been Z. This isn't possible to argue against – it's plain and simple. Morrill was convinced the '78 letter was genuine. And Ross died in '77.

Ergo, if Ross was Z, then Morrill was clearly not infallible. But if he was mistaken about the '78 letter, how can we be sure he was right about the desktop poem? In both cases there were other experts who reached different conclusions.

A pick and choose method of some kind seems to be inevitable here – and that's problematic in itself, for many reasons. It goes for almost any possible “unified” theory in this case: We have to believe NN on X – but doubt him on Y. We have to take Z's own words at face value in one instance – but declare him a liar in the next instance. We have to assume that he followed a pattern – but that this pattern was so loose that it might as well be called...whatever the opposite of a pattern is.

And so it goes on. But boring it most certainly is not! I think we can all agree on that.

Norse wrote:...But if Morrill was infallible, then Ross can't possibly have been Z. This isn't possible to argue against – it's plain and simple. Morrill was convinced the '78 letter was genuine. And Ross died in '77.

Ergo, if Ross was Z, then Morrill was clearly not infallible. But if he was mistaken about the '78 letter, how can we be sure he was right about the desktop poem? In both cases there were other experts who reached different conclusions.

This.

And it doesn't prove one way or another Ross was or wasn't Zodiac, just that people are human and make mistakes and nothing, it appears, is written in stone.

Norse wrote:But if he was mistaken about the '78 letter, how can we be sure he was right about the desktop poem? In both cases there were other experts who reached different conclusions.

Sherwood was correct about the 1978 letter, in that it was Zodiac's handwriting, but he failed to realize it was a forgery. Major difference is that one can't go back in time and forge the desktop before anyone even knew about Zodiac.

Tahoe27 wrote:

Norse wrote:...But if Morrill was infallible, then Ross can't possibly have been Z. This isn't possible to argue against – it's plain and simple. Morrill was convinced the '78 letter was genuine. And Ross died in '77.

Ergo, if Ross was Z, then Morrill was clearly not infallible. But if he was mistaken about the '78 letter, how can we be sure he was right about the desktop poem? In both cases there were other experts who reached different conclusions.

This.

And it doesn't prove one way or another Ross was or wasn't Zodiac, just that people are human and make mistakes and nothing, it appears, is written in stone.

Moreover: when we debate about what constitutes "proof", we often point to handwriting analysis, witness-produced sketches, and crime scene investigations that weren't always handled in the most organized manner. And understandably so -- we do not have a whole lot else to go on. And as the years go by, we have less and less.

So while there is a call to focus only on "the facts", the temptation to get creative with what we find -- be it word-of-mouth, individual conjuncture, or the context of that era -- is tempting. And quite human.

I find being skeptical very helpful. Not just with the Z case, but in real life I tend to believe about 10 - 20 percent of what I hear, and only about 80 percent of what I see.

More evidence - the more the better - can manage to get my belief above 80%. It has to be pretty solid, though, and multiple sources always help. I take no one at their word.

-glurk

Paul_Averly wrote:
Sherwood was correct about the 1978 letter, in that it was Zodiac's handwriting, but he failed to realize it was a forgery. Major difference is that one can't go back in time and forge the desktop before anyone even knew about Zodiac.

Yes, that's a fair enough point in itself - and a distinction worth mentioning.

But it's not hard to see how this, too, can be spun a certain way: In being wrong, Morrill was actually right - thus strengthening his status as The Foremost Zodiac Expert (TM).

Not saying that's what you did - but it's easy to see how someone might be tempted to do so. Morrill was fooled - other experts were not. That would be another take on it. Morrill was very eager to confirm Z as the author of suspected exemplars - other experts were less eager. That would be yet another take - or spin.

Norse wrote:Morrill was fooled - other experts were not. That would be another take on it. Morrill was very eager to confirm Z as the author of suspected exemplars - other experts were less eager. That would be yet another take - or spin.

The 1978 letter had a lot going on with it. At first many experts were fooled. Morrill was more eager to defend Toschi that prove the letter was authentic.