The Hunt for the Zodiac by Mike Rodelli

[mike_r]

Hi,

Cells found does not necessarily mean that the letter was licked by the sender.You know that, right? How many cells were found? Was saliva found? If there were a few cells, that could be contaminant DNA on the outside of the letter because SFPD did not selectively test only the backs of the stamps and envelopes. Cells can be deposited on the outside of the envelope by someone touching the letter and depositing some cells without any saliva being deposited. Alan Keel told both me and Lafferty that the true Z letters might just as well have been sealed with tap water. If you want to dispute those findings, I suggest you contact Mr. Keel, not me. As for the Exorcist letter, I suggest that one as the second forgery because it is the ONLY 1974 letter on the chart.

Let's say that you can find zero cells on one letter, 12 cells per sq. mm. on another and if a letter were licked you'd be expecting to find something like 1200 cells per sq. mm. You could say for letter two that there was no saliva found but that you found a VERY low concentration of cells, 12 per mm-squared. These cells did not appear because the letter was licked by the sender and there is not enough of them to say that the letter was licked because they are two orders of magnitude too low (12 vs. 1200) for that to be true but "cells were found" even though not nearly enough for the letter to have been licked and in the absence of saliva because they were picked up on the FRONT of the stamp from the environment in various ways.

Mike

[mike_r]

Hi,

Just received this review on Amazon:

"4.0 out of 5 stars Very good. Objective. Riviting. Worth reading. Though I didn't like the obvious typos. I just might be fully convinced now of this suspect. I really liked that the author mentions his struggles, and how he came to his conclusions. This author is believable, and humble to me. Verified Purchase

I admire this author's guts, determination in his research, in spite of his admitted struggles. Enjoyed immensely, though a dark subject. I hope and pray for the victims families."

All that strong verbiage but only 4 stars.  That is because noticed the typos that nobody else had ever commented on.  Most of the typos were contextual, not ones that would have shown up in red in Word.  I edit a lot and then forget to reword around the edit.  A wise friend I have told me that an author can proof his own MS because he reads what is supposed to be there in his mind.  Of course, my agent was supposed to proof it but she apparently only used spell-check. As of yesterday, she is no longer my agent. So I am in search of a new one lol. (The timing was coincidental, BTW.)

BTW, this guy misspelled "riveting" in his review, so errors can happen to anyone lol.
Mike

[mike_r]

Latest Amazon review:

Albert Maule
Very good. Objective. Riviting. Worth reading. Though I didn't like the obvious typos. I just might be fully convinced now of this suspect. I really liked that the author mentions his struggles, and how he came to his conclusions. This author is believable, and humble to me.
October 11, 2019
Verified Purchase
Format: Kindle Edition
I admire this author's guts, determination in his research, in spite of his admitted struggles. Enjoyed immensely, though a dark subject. I hope and pray for the victims families.

[mike_r]

Hi,

I have been forced to defend myself and my research something fierce recently from outrageous attacks on my integrity and truthfulness from people who have not even read my book. I find it rather incredible that there are people who say that they don't believe things that I wrote in my book, especially since I am a guy who went out of his way to pen a book with nearly 200 footnotes, so that I could at least try to document everything I say.

So it is nice to be able to report that I have received yet another five-star review from a name that is well-known in the case, Dr. David Van Nuys:

"As a co-author of the 2002 book, This Is The Zodiac Speaking, I've enjoyed an off and on correspondence with Michael Rodelli as he dug into the mysteries surrounding the Zodiac serial killer case. He is such a talented, tireless and persistent investigator that I was early on fairly persuaded that he had in fact identified the Zodiac. I'm glad to see that his years of dedication to the project has finally culminated in such well-written and well-argued book. I'm about 98% persuaded that he has successfully solved the case. I'm afraid I need to see some physical evidence to get me past that final 2%. I keep hoping that someday someone will find a piece of binding physical evidence in an old attic or basement. This hope says more about me than the case Rodelli has so carefully built-up. If there is a flaw in his reasoning, I can't spot it."

I saw myself referred to as "Five Star Mike" on Reddit the other day. So be it. If you were to write a book on the case that is being well-reviewed but largely ignored (in contrast to, say, Gary Stewart's book and his mostly discredited evidence), why not try to persuade skeptics to read it and give my suspect a chance by reminding them of the (mostly) good reviews I've received?

BTW, the reference to there being no discernible flaw in my reasoning closely echoes Mike Kelleher's reaction when I showed him what is now Chapter 15 in my book, my solution to Zodiac's first bus bomb as a map to a "certain house" in PH, in December 1999. He said he tried his best but that he could find no leaps of logic or flaws in the way I argued my solution to that diagram. That reasoning is explained in detail in that chapter.

Mike

[mike_r]

Here is a tweet I saw today from a poster named Snark:

If you still think the Zodiac killer remains unknown, you haven’t read @MikeRodelli’s book. A very compelling investigation.

[mike_r]

Hi,

I just want to clear up one point that I see misstated over and over again on MB's and on the Net about Lindsey Robbins. Lindsey told my colleague Jim Dean in 2003 in no uncertain terms that while his family may have known the Qvale's, Lindsey had never met, and did not know, Kjell Qvale until the 1970s when Qvale had long hair, sideburns and no glasses. As for his sister, in 2003 when Jim spoke to him and asked to speak to Rebecca, Lindsey made Jim promise not to even mention Qvale's name to her because she had no idea who he was and Lindsey did not want her to know who he was.

So people can misstate this stuff until they turn blue in the face to discredit me but Lindsey would not and could not have recognized Qvale on October 11, 1969. In fact, when Jim faxed Linsdsey a photo of Qvale the day after he spoke to him with his "1960s look" of short hair and horn rimmed glasses, Lindsey asked if Jim was sure this was actually a photo of Qvale because he had never seen him looking that way. Lindsey was stunned.

It is inevitable that people are going to discredit me, like saying that Qvale was "ruled out by DNA" in 2002. But if you are going to do so you had best use factual material, not distortions like Lindsey knowing KQ in 1969 or the 2002 being anything even remotely resembling valid evidence.

[Shawn]

FWIW I am not ruling anyone out. I think you have to keep all suspects in mind when researching the case.

You are right....Presidio Terrace does show a resemblance to the bomb clock.

Ironically, The mayor's mansion was bombed in 1975. Union workers were blamed if I remember correctly.

[mike_r]

Hi,

I stumbled onto this review of my book the other day on a site called Darkideas.net. I even included the last sentence in the interest of full disclosure, although in contrast to Ted K, Qvale fits the profile by Richard Walter, one of the deans of behavioral profiler and one of the three co-founders of the Vidocq Society of Philadelphia. Ted decidedly does not. In fact, Walter told me many moons ago that the one thing I can rest assured about is that Ted was not the Zodiac, as much respect as I have for Doug O's research.

"The other book I highly recommend is ‘The Hunt for Zodiac’ by Mike Rodelli. Where Oswell schools us in the art of academic-style research, Mike Rodelli puts us all to shame with his actual boots-on-the-ground investigation and interviews with those involved in the Zodiac case.

The Hunt for Zodiac The long-awaited account of his research into the elusive ‘Mr X’ matches Oswell’s effort for astronomical levels of coincidence if it transpires that his man is not The Zodiac. Both of these books are available on Amazon and are shining examples of what citizen investigators can uncover through hard work and tenacity. Unfortunately at least one of them is sure to be full of nothing more than bizarre coincidences… pure Zynchronicity."

This review is much kinder and, frankly, fairer to my years of research than the ridiculous reviews I've been receiving on Amazon lately, which seem to be nothing more than hit jobs lol.

[jamesmsv]

That's my site Mike and I'm glad you think it's a fair review. Whilst I don't discredit 'online' research (after all, 100% of mine is that), I still think that the physical resources employed by a few well-known Z researchers is the most valuable. And there's simply no arguing that having first-hand interviews with people relevant to your case is pure gold.

I also find that the act of 'deep-diving' and immersing in one particular suspect through your's and Oswell's books gives a far better understanding of the situation than having to wade through reams of often-useless forum posts. One does, of course, have to pick their books carefully.

And, as for my last sentence, it does still blow my mind that both of you can come up with so much and yet at least one of you is seeing pure zynch.

[mike_r]

Hi,

Let me say this about Doug. I really like him a lot. When I got back from interviewing KQ in 2006, I called Doug for some reason and we started having a series of conversations about the case. We laughed and traded stories like old friends. Doug proved to me that two people can have differing ideas about the case but not have to go at each other like cats and dogs. He has a good sense of humor and I really appreciated the many calls we shared.