Zodiackiller.com Message Board: Possible Zodiac Victim Cheri Jo Bates: Riverside
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p52.as1.dungarvan1.eircom.net - 22.214.171.124) on Wednesday, December 27, 2000 - 10:18 am:|
Mike kelleher beleives CJB,s killer and the letter writer knew each other well.Is this a belief you share? I see there's some opinions of his you do not agree with.I would be very interested in discussing these areas of disagreement,if your willing.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (proxy-dover.mednet.af.mil - 126.96.36.199) on Wednesday, December 27, 2000 - 01:23 pm:|
Just playing the percentages I find this to be highly unlikely.
|By Ed N. (Edn) (spider-ntc-td022.proxy.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Wednesday, December 27, 2000 - 01:35 pm:|
Especially considering the revelation that the knife did not break in her body, although the letter writer claimed it did. He also got the timing all wrong. Both facts indicate to me that killer and writer did not know each other, otherwise, why did the writer get them wrong? Leroy Gren's comment was probably correct: the writer must have guessed the detail about the middle wire being pulled but otherwise had nothing to do with the crime itself.
|By Esau (Esau) (cc129455-a.rcrdva1.ca.home.com - 184.108.40.206) on Wednesday, December 27, 2000 - 06:01 pm:|
It is possible that the knife blade broke during the administration of a defensive wound such as from striking an ulna or olecranon process in the forearm and the broken part of the blade fell onto the ground. Therefore the killer may be truthful when stating that the blade broke but RPD wouldn't know about the broken blade. It's a long shot but it is possible.........
|By Esau (Esau) (cc129455-a.rcrdva1.ca.home.com - 220.127.116.11) on Wednesday, December 27, 2000 - 06:13 pm:|
On another note I do believe Zodiac wrote the letter to the Riverside PD. The fact that the writer mentions the game, mentioned that killing was fun (it was a ball), mentioned details that were not made public (although some of it may have been incorrect), he mentioned that he offered to help the girl who was having car trouble that he deliberately caused (similar to Kathleen Johns), the demand that the letter be published, claims to have made a call, and used excessive postage on the envelope. I personally believe that Zodiac is the killer of Cheri Jo Bates.
|By Jake Wark (Jake) (spider-wc064.proxy.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Wednesday, December 27, 2000 - 06:45 pm:|
"Mike kelleher beleives CJB,s killer and the letter writer knew each other well.Is this a belief you share? I see there's some opinions of his you do not agree with."
The impression I've gotten from speaking with Mike K is that he feels the Zodiac knew Bates' killer, but not necessarily the other way around. This could be a relationship where a nerdy Z looked up to a tough guy Bates killer from afar, though I'm reluctant to express any opinion on behalf of Kelleher -- MK kept a lot under wraps, even from a bigshot Website operator like myself. My personal opinion is that that scenario is a little too much like a comic book where the villain is eventually unmasked as Captain America's brother or something, but I'd like to read the book before I comment further on that suggestion.
One of the points that I originally disagreed with Kelleher on was his proposition that Bates was not killed by the Zodiac. I ate a lot of crow on that one. He also feels that Z wrote the "Bates" letters, but not the Confession. He says in one of the Q&As on my site that the two authors "were two different killers," implying that the Confession author killed Bates -- I don't know if I buy that one, either, given the rumors that the knife didn't break and the fact that the Confession author doesn't mention the savagery of Bates' murder.
Kelleher and I also disagree on the 1978 letter; he says it's legit, I say it's a phony. My reasons are detailed at my site, and Mike's will be presented in his book. Again, in fairness, I'd like to study his opinion before I paraphrase it here.
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p102.as2.dungarvan1.eircom.net - 22.214.171.124) on Thursday, December 28, 2000 - 10:24 am:|
I am particularly interested in the assertion that Zodiac was a reactive type and what
this implies.According to Graysmith(so I do not know if this is true)when the confession
letter was typed the author attempted to disguise the make by using several carbon
copies.This to me seems to point to someone who may have been well informed on police
procedures etc.The fact that he later went on to kill in different jurisdictions seems to
imply he was familiar with the problems this would cause for the police.There
are other things as well.Nowadays all this is type
of information is readily available,however I was of the impression (I stand to be corrected)most of this did not surface until after,say,Bundy and the various books on forensics and behavioral sciences that became popular in the serial killer era.
In Thomas Cullen,for instance you see the reactive type of serial killer with alot of similarities between himself and Zodiac.
ps on the broken knife issue I still do not see how someone wanting to claim responsibility for this murder would include this.I am of the opinion
that if we or the police did not have "Barnett" this letter would be view differently.
|By Jake Wark (Jake) (spider-wg043.proxy.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Thursday, December 28, 2000 - 02:34 pm:|
"I am particularly interested in the assertion that Zodiac was a reactive type and what this implies."
The very first letter Z wrote after his three-part cryptogram bundle directly referred to a newspaper story in which VPD Chief Stiltz asked the killer to write again with more details. He also mentions VPD's guess as to how he killed Jensen and Faraday in low-light conditions, and refers to his getaway as different from the one described in the paper. His decision to write to Melvin Belli was almost certainly influenced by the notorious Jim Dunbar Show hoax.
If you look at many of the later Z letters, you'll see that they follow and often refer to major crimes reported by the media. This is the case with the "I shot a man sitting in a parked car with a .38" claim (following the murder of a cop in such a manner); the "I hope you don't think I blew up the cop station" letter (which followed a bombing); and the "SLA" letter (a week after Patty Hearst was kidnapped). These are good examples of Z reading the newspaper and reacting to articles that interested him.
Incidentally, Mike Kelleher offered this (among other things) in response to the broken knife issue:
"Don't be too hung up about some of the details in that
letter that are inaccurate. For example, claiming to stab a victim until the
knife broke cannot necessarily be taken literally in such a letter. In fact,
there's even an argument to be made that it was a very libido-oriented
comment (but more on that some other time)."
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."
|By Hurley (Hurley) (spider-wo072.proxy.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Thursday, December 28, 2000 - 04:00 pm:|
Hi Jake. I know it may seemed far fetched but I do kind of wonder if Zodiac knew Lawrence Kane but maybe Kane didn't know Zodiac. People keep finding his name in ciphers and it's obvious in the "My name is cipher" but I find it hard to believe that anyone, even Z would be so bold to deliberately reveal their name so easily. I do wonder if Z knew of Kane, or others and did try to emulate them in some way. Even the Lake Tahoe postcard. I just find that too easy. Maybe I'm wrong but Donna Lass moved there, then Kane, then she disappears and a postcard surfaces sometime later. Because it so obviously makes Kane look suspicious is why I, with what I do know about everything, I don't really think Kane is Z.
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p105.as2.dungarvan1.eircom.net - 184.108.40.206) on Friday, December 29, 2000 - 11:08 am:|
Jake wrote;-"These are good examples of Z reading the newspaper and reacting to
articles that interested him".
I understand what reacting in this sense means, however I was alluding more to the knowledge he acquired either before he started killing and/or as he went along in terms of his MO and signature.
I heard a comment once,something to the effect that there was nothing unique in Zodiacs methods per se.That nothing he did had not been done before and he was drawing from things he read about.I wondered if this was the case or if he was drawing from experience,or both,and how all this interacts with the facts of the case.Some examples,to start with,to explain what I mean:-
1.The Riverside confession letter.
The author of this(we will go along with the most popular scenario for the sake of discussion)wrote this to claim responsibility for CJB's murder.He apparently made an attempt to disguise the make by using carbon copies.
a.Did he have knowledge of police identification techniques?
b.If he did where did he acquire this Knowledge?
I would have thought(I stand to be corrected)that this in particular would not have been generally known at that time!
c.Could he have read it?or was he drawing from experience?
d.IF this was an individual not intent on a murderous career and just "playing" with the police,as long as he left no prints, why go to so much trouble?
2.KILLING IN DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS
Ditto on questions a,b and c.
3.THE MELVIN BELLI LETTER
I must admit I was struck by the similarity between this and the message left by William Heirens in the context of this whole discussion.
Heirens in 1948 left a message on a mirror,I think
which read:-"For heavens sake catch me before I kill more I cannot control myself".
a.Similar types of offenders?
c.Zodiac playing games?
4.ZODIAC,s REACTION TO THE SOLUTION OF THE FIRST CIPHER.
Apparently Zodiac's reaction to this was to come back with a cipher with more characters,making it more difficult to solve.IT WASN'T.But he still went on to issue 2 more,with 32 and 13 characters
-virtually impossible to solve.
a.Are we looking at someone who read a code book?
b.Are we looking at someone with basic training?
c.Are we looking at some genius with a master plan,who's keys to these codes we already have?
I wonder if there's any library records somewhere
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p98.as2.dungarvan1.eircom.net - 220.127.116.11) on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 11:22 am:|
Can anyone tell me
IS it a Fact that there were Two people in the Library on the night of the CJB killing that could not be accounted for later by police?
|By Howard (Howard) (dialup-18.104.22.168.losangeles1.level3.net - 22.214.171.124) on Monday, January 29, 2001 - 02:53 am:|
Lapumo-Yes ,there was a young man in his 20s ,with brown hair, about 5'11" ,heavy set ,with a beard(Davis wore a beard at his arrest 12/2/70), seen talking to a blond haired woman in the libary.Some have speculated that the blond was none other than Darlene and that this is when(in the alley) she saw the bearded man -that followed her years later- kill"someone"i.e. Bates! When an reenactment (great move on Crosses' part!)of all the people in the library the night of the Bates'murder,there were two missing -the heavyset man in his 20s and the young blond woman.My question :why not a composite? The letter writer said he was IN the library when Bates was trying to start her car and after 'about 2 minutes' he came out to check on his intended prey.The Studebaker-47-52-that some people saw on Riverside Dr. that night never turned up. The 66' Olds bronze in color that was closely following Bates as she drove towards the library has not been identified either.If Z was her killer ,he most certainly followed her that day. There would have been several days that he followed Bates until the right time to strike.I drove from the Bates home several years ago and took the same route Bates took -it was strange.The ear /witnesses heard an "old car" start up at around 10:30 pm the night of the murder ;this was probably that old stud'with oxidized paint ON RIVERside Dr.Two cars and two people and we don't have any of them! Cheri's friends were in the library,but do not remember seeing her.No one remembers seeing Barnett either.The letter writer said he was IN library.
|By Esau (Esau) (cc129455-a.rcrdva1.ca.home.com - 126.96.36.199) on Monday, January 29, 2001 - 05:34 pm:|
Hi Howard, can anyone place Darlene Ferrin in Riverside at the time of the Cheri Jo Bates murder?
|By Howard (Howard) (dsl-gte-10407-2.linkline.com - 188.8.131.52) on Monday, January 29, 2001 - 07:43 pm:|
Esau-Pam told me several years ago that Darlene was in Riverside in the 66' period. Of course, you will have to verify that info -I never could!Sandy says she believes that Darlene was living in Rosemead ,which is in the Riverside area ,as she affirms.The words on that photo envelope,supposedly in Darlene's writing, use the same adjectives that reports on the Bate's murder use to describe CB's 87'-like "stuck", "hacked".The writing on the envelope is in dispute in some circles. I am inclined to believe it is D's. Everything is in dispute in this weird case!
|By Alanc (Alanc) (spider-ta054.proxy.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Monday, January 29, 2001 - 08:10 pm:|
No, Howard, not EVERYTHING is in dispute. That assertion is a classic disinformation
technique usually applied to an enigmatic event after the insertion of a great deal of
noise. There are fixed truths here, and events which can be verified.
Pam and Sandy have yet to establish any credibility whatsoever. Citing them undermines your own by revealing you to be a less than rigorous critic. Being related to a murder victim doesn't make you an expert on the case, and Pam has certainly had enough time and access to establish her credentials if she had any. Sandy is barely coherent.
You have an agenda, and that agenda imposes a bias on your research into this case.
|By Howard (Howard) (dialup-220.127.116.11.losangeles1.level3.net - 18.104.22.168) on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 02:53 am:|
Alanc-If you read my post carefully you will see that I only reported what Pam told me and I clearly say that "Of course, you will have to verify that info-I NEVER COULD"!When I state that everything is in dispute I was using a synecdoche which a PART is put FOR the WHOLE(there are hundreds of figures of speech of which Dr. E.W.Bullinger was an expert!.I very well know that, in fact, everything in the Zodiac case is not in dispute. I would not have spent 14 years of my life and thousands of dollars if I literally believed everything is truly in dispute and that nothing can be proven in this case!When it comes to certain elements of the Z case at any point in time that is still unproven, then I will say that piece of info is in dispute AT this time,but I will work like hell to untangle it-if possible. You are right-I do have an agenda-to seek resolution for the families and justice for those young victims!And if possible point out the man who was Zodiac.But, I speak for all of us when I say "I"-as this is a community project where all of us contribute in some way .As the sayings go 'One never knows that something that might be said or done today could effect the lives of many tomorrow'and 'It's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness'. We ALL are daring to do that-nothing is impossible!Sandy, in her way is trying to contribute, and others, like Tom, Jake, EdN.,etc. are contributing in their way,but it's a TEAM effort.I don't think anyone one person will crack this case as that work would have to have been based on the work of the many and the real reward is that justice is done.Thank you for your criticism ,and as always, I will think it through and try to improve as "faithful are the wounds of a friend" Proverbs.I thank you for taking the time to correct me,etc. I know you have better things to do,but we all need the feed back from others-I sure DO!One other thing that you may have missed. In a post some time back I stated that "Pam has a credibility problem "and she replied right away as she should have done .Being in a family of a murder victim does not make you right and does not give one credibility-that must be earned,hence my posts.