Feedback For January 15 Letter


Zodiackiller.com Message Board: Letters: New Zodiac Letters?: Feedback For January 15 Letter

By Tom Voigt (Admin) (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Wednesday, January 15, 2003 - 09:15 pm:

Ok, let's hear it...

By Ed N. (Ed_N) (acc2d3b6.ipt.aol.com - 172.194.211.182) on Wednesday, January 15, 2003 - 10:07 pm:

Hmm... now she's in Thailand??? The writing looks less Z-like than ever and the "7" is still wrong. There's a few spelling errors, such as "Voight," "exeistance," "potencial," and "possilbe." She wants $10 million "to provide cash flow and closure" for the families involved as a result of my deeds past," and even though she claims to have changed, there is not one word of sorrow concerning the victims, nor one word about returning to the US to face justice for the Z crimes (kind of impossible since the Singapore Slinger is female). Money cannot bring closure, but, if she truly is Z, watching her die for her crimes certainly will! Too bad we don't have Ol' Sparky here in CA. That would be even better. The other thing is, she offered nothing in the form of "proof" as to her identity; the prints and DNA could have come from anyone, and I sincerely doubt they belong to the Singapore Slinger, who I know cannot possibly be Z. I could go on, but I think I've made the point: SS is a moron if she thinks anyone would believe she's Z after the cock-and-bull story she gave in the first letter. She's completely lost credibility and is just digging herself in deeper in this second letter.

By William Baker (Bill_Baker) (lsanca1-ar6-4-63-088-074.lsanca1.elnk.dsl.genuity.net - 4.63.88.74) on Wednesday, January 15, 2003 - 10:15 pm:

"She" speaks of the prints and DNA sent to you as though they had been submitted, compared and confirmed as being Z's. Am I missing something?

By Ed N. (Ed_N) (acc2d3b6.ipt.aol.com - 172.194.211.182) on Wednesday, January 15, 2003 - 10:16 pm:

Now that I think of it, why didn't SS provide us with the names of the people she used to hang out and do drugs with in SF in 1968-74? That would make a lot more sense so that we could find these people and ask them if her BS story about being some clairvoyant "Priest" were true. The fact that SS didn't provide us with such vital and essential information to confirm her fairy story speaks VOLUMES.

By Bruce (Bruce_D) (pm3-02-04.sle.du.teleport.com - 216.26.16.132) on Wednesday, January 15, 2003 - 11:32 pm:

Tom, I was curious(although I know that you can't reveal it) what was blacked out in the P.S. section.

By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 12:29 am:

.tnemmoc oN

By Law123 (Law123) (cache-ntc-af07.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.26.172) on Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 12:44 am:

1. I ditto Baker's question re dna, prints (could lawyers and det's think alike?)

2. I still remember a contract with the movie producers that said they could "exploit" your website which begs the question once again is this a movie publicity stunt?

3. I still think if its a fake its damn good both in manner of word usage, Z's psychology, and even handwriting (in fact its so good that it could be a very well scripted fake but for what purpose) if this movie stuff wanst involved Id lean towards its very much like a real Z letter.

By Alan Cabal (Alan_Cabal) (cache-dr05.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.209.169) on Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 03:07 am:

The only way I'd buy that letter would be if it came with a piece of Paul Stine's shirt. It doesn't sound like Z and it doesn't look like Z. It does look like the work of some cinema wannabe. I see a dumb blonde in the Little Black Dress with a cell phone glued to her ear...

By Blayne (Blayne) (ca-esanf-vn16-b-241.vnnyca.adelphia.net - 68.69.252.241) on Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 04:02 am:

I really hope this has nothing to do with the "Zodiac" movie. Well scripted or not, I've been curious and interested in this for far too long to have it all peaked by a publicity stunt. Seriously. If it is...I'd rather be involved than go on wondering. YO TOM! Give us parts as message board actors...whatever...we could make it look good still! Hell, I type far better than I talk any day.

Hi everybody...first time writing. Been watching for awhile...thought I'd say hi.

I don't buy the $10 million aspect. I believe ZOCIAC (and when I say that, I'm talking about that guy who caused a big ol' ruckus 30 some odd years ago....NOT the executive film producer) knows that there IS no way to make off with $10 million dollars unless you find it laying in the street and no one's around, or you rob a train or something and for SOME cosmic freak of nature reason all goes right with your particular Mr. Pink.
I LAUGHED MY ASS OFF when the Beltway Snipers demanded their $10 Million. At the time I thought it was bullshit...much like Alan Rickman in "Die Hard" when he asks for the release of a number of political prisoners in other countries...just to buy them some "time." I was wrong of course...the Beltway Snipers were just stupid.

Zodiac is not stupid. Was not stupid...and if this is our boy, he is not stupid now. That request was either the brainchild of an idiot who's watched WAY too many bad John Travolta movies...or a calculated excuse of some kind.

I don't necessarily know WHAT I believe in regards to these letters anyway. So much has been said about this "r" and that number "7" that my head hurts. But I do think a lot can happen in 30 years. And he does seem VERY proud of the fact that in some way Tom has has made it apparent, if only to him - that the contents of his letter has proven his worth. This part trips me out.
If I were a Zodiac wanna-be and was sending stuff to the leading site of third party research with claims of actually BEING the killer, I would automatically assume that ANYTHING I sent or said would be scrutinized by not only the administrator...but quite possibly the authorities as well. And IF I wrote a second letter...I would be ANTICIPATING the response that told me to quit wasting everybody's time cuz the stuff I sent was checked out as fake. This didn't happen. He sounded quite sure of himself.

Of course this could be Tom's doing. Tom could've led him to believe whatever he wanted, so that's where I fall flat with this one.

Every since the first letter I've thought that the writing reminds me of a better focused version of ZODIAC's writing. I DEFINITELY do not write the same as I did 20 years ago. Mine's getting WORSE actually. I do know that there is confidence in that writing. What kind of confidence I don't know. But whoever it is, either believes in what's being written...or is certain without a doubt that what he's doing is really cool and no one will ever know the better.

I don't get the SHE comments. What and where did I miss that? Rock.

Blayne.

By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (89.philadelphia05rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 12.90.24.89) on Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 04:18 am:

I'd be willing to guess I know who the author of these letters is, but for the life of me I can't remember his name--it'll probably come to me sometime in the next few days if I really put my mind to it. He was a grandiose sort of person who claimed to have solved the Zodiac ciphers and approached me and Rusconi a number of times trying to get in a book deal, with him getting the lion's share of the profits. Now that I think of it, I believe he was mentioned in the Vallejo Times-Herald a couple of years ago, once again claiming to have solved the ciphers. Now I've got it: Ken Mosbaugh. If not him, then someone exactly like him.

By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p50-50.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 159.134.50.50) on Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 05:12 am:

I tend to believe that this person has given Tom something that makes some kind of sense.It could very well be that this was some kind of solution
to a code or partial code.From that point of view you could be close enough Doug.
Not a bad way to get get your work looked at.

By Donna (Realtor) (208.128.16.97) on Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 06:53 am:

Just to clarify, I think this is letter #3 recently, right? There was the Singapore, the Atlanta, and now the Thailand letter.

Here's an angle I'll run up the flagpole: What if Zodiac had multiple personality disorder? He could have killed and written in one style while he was Person A and then worked and written another way while he was Person B. That could have been what he meant when he said something about "I look entirely different when I do my thing." Now, 30 years later, that is what he is referring to when he says "I have changed" and that's the reason the handwriting looks a good bit more focused (I liked what you said about that, Blayne) and more feminine. Maybe one of his personalities was butch/macho and the one that has come to the forefront is more effeminate.

Last point for now: Tom has always, always been quick to "pass judgement" on all of us posters. If someone seems to have screws loose, Tom will be among the first to say so. If these 3 letters convince Tom that they are fakes, he would have told us already. So he must not be sure yet whether they are the real thing, and he would certainly know better than any of us, since he has seen the contents of Singapore (we haven't seen page 2 or the contents of the packages) and he has seen the Atlanta letter (we have only seen a bit that was typed out). He also seems to understand what he and this unknown party are saying to each other via code and these cryptic messages that Tom posts to him.

Tom, I highly respect your most recent message to the Zodiac: "It's not about the money. It's about the...victims." You're pretty swell.

By Warren (Warren) (w205.z064002105.hou-tx.dsl.cnc.net - 64.2.105.205) on Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 07:35 am:

I've held this for a while, but the writing seems similar to Ruth Lommel's. I don't think she wrote these (if alive, she would be about 84 years old) but only offer it as an example of the German tendency to place commas well below the line of script.

By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p51-197.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 159.134.51.197) on Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 09:18 am:

Tom,
Am I reading this correctly. He appears to be saying that he never knew of this website until he wrote,in fact he appears to be saying that he was unaware that you had any connection to such a website.How then did he get your name?.Why you?
I thought after reading the first letter that there were signs that he was responding to some of the convesations on the board.
The more I read this letter the more convinced I am that I know/recognise the style. Maybe I'm wrong,anybody pick up on this or have any thoughts?

By Metalex (Metalex) (129.210.209.164) on Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 09:35 am:

This again looks too much like a movie publicity "leader" to stir up interest in the film especially since Tom posts a link to another site about Zodiac (how often does he do that?) that mentions a SF cop who has been supposedly communicating with "Zody" for over 9 years. According to the site the info was posted 5 years ago. As we all already know the web is a great place for free advertising. The new letter mentions technology but what seems strange is that the sender says she / he never saw Toms site until he told them about it. This is very similar to the web generated publicity that the Blair Witch Project received almost a year before it was even released. Come on you people are all pretty sharp!! Do you really think the real Zodiac would just start up a dialog with a guy who runs a website about him instead of going directly to a movie producer himself? Kinda like Confessions Of A Dangerous Mind, it was first released back in '82 and was not even considered to be a decent seller but now 21 years later it's a movie because of interest in current events post 9/11. This morning Chuck Barris was on KFOG in SF for an interview since he is also doing local book signings and when asked how many people he actually killed as a CIA operative he said not as many as in the movie which is 33 only around 6 or 7. Now don't you think as a real CIA agent he would remember exactly how many and the methods used? I still liked The Unknown Comic and Mean Gene The Dancing Machine!!

By Ed N. (Ed_N) (acc034d7.ipt.aol.com - 172.192.52.215) on Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 10:09 am:

Blayne: we call the "Singapore Slinger" "she" because the writing looks so feminine. When she sent Tom the first letter last November, many reached the conclusion that the writer was in fact female. I'm honestly surprised she sent a second one considering her hoax is so transparent and her story pure bullpucky.

By Muskogee (Muskogee) (216-19-219-89.getnet.net - 216.19.219.89) on Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 11:02 am:

This looks like such a cheap money-making (or movie- promoting) scam, it's not even funny. Still, I wonder why Tom is still communicating with this person if it's all a hoax...that's the only thing that gives me pause.

By TheBlackJet (Theblackjet) (d223h169.public.uconn.edu - 137.99.223.169) on Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 12:33 pm:

That second page reminded of what the Beltway Sniper was trying to do. Embezzlement and money were never Zodiac's forte.

By Blayne (Blayne) (ca-esanf-vn16-b-241.vnnyca.adelphia.net - 68.69.252.241) on Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 01:52 pm:

Thanx for the sum-up Ed!

I don't lend a whole lot of credence to the notion that an effeminate writing style points to a woman. That always seems to be the assumption when something is written nicely. Back before I developed (not on purpose) my own form of shorthand, my writing was thought to look like the writing of a woman too. Used to drive me crazy. If it hadn't been for puberty I would've written nicely AND had a high voice.

The Unknown Comic RULED.

By Ryan Olesin (Ryan) (209.5.227.81) on Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 04:43 pm:

If Zodiac wants some of the money given back to the victims then he needs to list all of his victims so we can do this fairly.

I'll chip in $100,000 after I sell my Boardwalk and Park Place property to the Shoe.

By Bruce Monson (Bruce_Monson) (mail.ci.colospgs.co.us - 204.131.210.1) on Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 05:27 pm:

ED N. wrote:
Blayne: we call the "Singapore Slinger" "she" because the writing looks so feminine. When she sent Tom the first letter last November, many reached the conclusion that the writer was in fact female. I'm honestly surprised she sent a second one considering her hoax is so transparent and her story pure bullpucky.


BRUCE MONSON:
As much as I respect Ed's and others' analyses and opinions here, I am inclined to call shenanigans on the assumption that the author of the Singapore and Thailand letters MUST be a "she" simply because the writing "looks so feminine."

There is no standard of proof to demonstrate such far-reaching assumptions to be true, however, particularly considering that genetics plays a huge role in how one writes. A male child may, for example, have very similar muscle, skeletal and tendon formation in the arms/hands/fingers that causes them to grasp and move writing instruments in a similar motion to his mother.

Others have stated as much here, and I can add myself to this category in that my own writing style and signature is nearly identical to that of my mother, although I tend to print while my mother usually writes.

While some similarities in style may be accounted for through familiarization and mimicing of style (e.g., Questioned-Document examiners have been known to determine the approximate age of a subject and even geographical location where subject was educated based on standard instruction styles taught in public schools during a particular time period), the genetic factor cannot be ignored.

In fact, I have even found that writing I did in the 2nd grade is also strikingly similar to writing my mother did when she was in grade school.

None of this is to say, of course, that the author of these letters is not female (that may well be the case), but rather assuming such to be the case based on a subjective "feeling" is a stretch by any standard of evidence.

The thing that really has me interested (as others have also noted) is the fact that Tom--if he is as certain that this is a hoax as others seem to be--is certainly treating it in a manner contrary to what we might expect if that were the case.

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (cache-ntc-af07.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.26.172) on Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 06:18 pm:

Well, one thing is for certain, whoever the writer of these letters turns out to be, he/she can't be involved in Lommel's movie for 2 simple reasons: 10 million is more than the entire budget of the movie, and the film is way beyond the script writing phase. In fact, it is currently in post-production.

Also, let's remember, the real Zodiac had no qualms whatsoever in providing proof with his missives to show that the letter couldn't have come from anyone else but the Zodiac. Until the author of these letters is as forthcoming with details and proof of his complicity in the Zodiac crimes as Zodiac himself was, I've no alternative but to label this person a fraud.

By Ed N. (Ed_N) (acad76bf.ipt.aol.com - 172.173.118.191) on Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 06:57 pm:

Bruce: good to see you back. The reason I refer to SS as "she" is not only because of the fact that the writing appears feminine (which doesn't prove that the writer is feminine, as you pointed out), but also to insult the author if she really is male. I wouldn't even be surprised if SS was a hermaphrodite, but Z she ain't. If she truly wants to prove that she's Z, she needs to send Tom one, more or all of the following: Paul Stine's ID, a piece of Stine's shirt, and the names of the losers she used to hang out with in SF doing drugs who could verify her bullsh*t story. I pointed out many of the problems with it, which wouldn't be apparent to someone who's never been to the area, which tells us that SS has no clue what she's talking about. SS is a liar and a moron just looking for an easy buck or two if she thinks anyone would swallow the tripe she calls the "truth."

Warren: that's the second time a possible German connection has come up. Maybe SS is really our old whipping boy, Strompunkie.

By Bruce Monson (Bruce_Monson) (mail.ci.colospgs.co.us - 204.131.210.1) on Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 09:04 pm:

Ed,

I hear you and do not disagree with the points you raise. I had not considered the "insult" angle by calling SS a "she" ("Oh, look at the girlie man!")

BTW, on the possibility that this is a hoax being played by someone who has either been associated with this list or even with certain individuals who post here, I have put together a list of phrases used by the author that someone may, perhaps, recognize:

THE REAL DEAL
TO THE MAX
MEAT AND POTATOES (with "oes")
DEEDS PAST
RIGHT DOWN TO IT
MEGA-HIT (s/he likes hyphens, as did "Z")
FICTION IMITATES LIFE
LAST BUT NOT LEAST
MIRACLE OF TECHNOLOGY
TRUTH WILL NOT BE SERVED
NEWS-BREAKING
ZODIAC-WANNABE
KNOWING NOW AS YOU DO
BOX OFFICE BLOCKBUSTER

These are just ones I saw in the latest letter. Some of these are pretty common ("to the max," "last but not least," etc.), but others, like "knowing now as you do" and "deeds past" are a bit awkward and far less common.

By Carolyn (Carolyn) (dialup-65.58.220.210.dial1.portland1.level3.net - 65.58.220.210) on Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 10:28 pm:

Maybe Zodiac had a sex change operation.

By the way, I have a very nice piece of the Brooklyn Bridge I can sell you...we'll split the profit!

By Valentine Smith (Valentinesmith) (cpe-gan-24-136-39-16-cmcpe.ncf.coxexpress.com - 24.136.39.16) on Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 10:52 pm:

I really don't know what to make of any of this. My gut feeling is that this is a load of crap. The Atlanta envelope certainly LOOKED more authentic, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. It's definitely the TONE of the SS letters, more so than the LOOK that has me unfulfilled.

But at the same time, Tom doesn't seem like one to pull one over on us, so there must be SOMETHING to this. I'm...so confused...

By Will (Will) (cache-dr05.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.209.169) on Friday, January 17, 2003 - 03:17 am:

At least ask him for a donation,since he is troubling the lot of us so much.I cant believe the real killer is the author.He would not chance things now.Not after all this time.He was long and forgotten,Why chance getting caught now?

By Warren (Warren) (w205.z064002105.hou-tx.dsl.cnc.net - 64.2.105.205) on Friday, January 17, 2003 - 07:37 am:

Bruce: Geraldo Rivera or Marv Albert?

By Warren (Warren) (w205.z064002105.hou-tx.dsl.cnc.net - 64.2.105.205) on Friday, January 17, 2003 - 08:10 am:

Lemme think... Singapore, Malayasia to Thailand (probably Bangkok)...maybe German... trying to prove manhood because writes like a girlyman...needs cash...aha! German tourist on sex junket.

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (cache-ntc-af07.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.26.172) on Friday, January 17, 2003 - 11:47 am:

"German tourist on sex junket."

Strompunkie?? Nah...

By Ed N. (Ed_N) (acac95c2.ipt.aol.com - 172.172.149.194) on Friday, January 17, 2003 - 07:27 pm:

This hoax is way too complex for that idiot. I doubt he can string more than two syllables together, much less write a coherent sentence in English (considering most Americans can't even do that!).

By Ed N. (Ed_N) (acac95c2.ipt.aol.com - 172.172.149.194) on Friday, January 17, 2003 - 07:35 pm:

BTW, the "mega-hit" SS proposes (with her "true" story of "what really happened") would not be a "box office blockbuster" at all. Rather than "blockbuster," such a movie can be summed up in one word: lackluster.

By TheBlackJet (Theblackjet) (cache-dr05.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.209.169) on Saturday, January 18, 2003 - 12:23 pm:

Maybe if we think about were this person found out about the Zodiac movie, we can find clues to its identity. It was mentioned on this website. He says he's never been to the site but that could be a lie. Where else? Variety? Did the person just pick up a random issue and just by chance it mentioned the Zodiac movie, or do they have a subscription? I don't remember seeing it on the news at all but I may be wrong. If it hasn't been mentioned anywhere else but on Tom's site you know its a hoax.

By Sandy (Sandy) (adsl-63-200-54-204.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net - 63.200.54.204) on Saturday, January 18, 2003 - 01:30 pm:

Let's face it,the he-she is a fake or "it" would have given us some solid proof. I do not believe a dog such as Zodiac could change it's spots!Killer's like z either get caught or die, they don't grow out of killing. If by chance it is Z and he is just having fun with us, then I hope he travels to Iraq and has lunch with Ben and Saddam. I would be happy to supply the Chianti and Fava bean's.

By Peter H (Peter_H) (pool-141-154-25-129.bos.east.verizon.net - 141.154.25.129) on Saturday, January 18, 2003 - 07:28 pm:

heheheheheeheheheeeee

By Gregusjay (Gregusjay) (12-234-233-242.client.attbi.com - 12.234.233.242) on Sunday, January 19, 2003 - 09:51 am:

Why creedence to this letter? I am positive Tom's received a lot of "phonies" and false claims. Sure, it's provided speculation and some good laughs, but with Z who knows what the hell he's doin'...He sure like F**in' with people.

By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p50-92.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 159.134.50.92) on Sunday, January 19, 2003 - 12:46 pm:

This person could provide a Key to one of the unsolved codes!

By J Eric (J_Eric) (1cust232.tnt1.san-fernando.ca.da.uu.net - 67.227.10.232) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 12:40 am:

As I read through the letter, I was so hoping Z would slip up and sign his real name at the end after "Yours truly." Titwillo, titwillo, titwillo. What we really need next is for Z to rush a snappy letter to an Editor or at least a Police Department. I yearn for those good old days.

By Peter H (Peter_H) (pool-141-154-26-173.bos.east.verizon.net - 141.154.26.173) on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 09:14 am:

Been a long dry spell on this once hot topic. Wht ever happened to the Singapore Slinger and the Atlanta Phantom?

By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (cache-mtc-ak04.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.96.201) on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 10:12 am:

IMO, they've been had.

By Warren (Warren) (w205.z064002105.hou-tx.dsl.cnc.net - 64.2.105.205) on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 11:02 am:

Singapore Slinger, after running out of euros, left Bangkok for the more familiar red light districts of Hamburg.

Atlanta Phantom was traded to the graveyard fka the Mets.

By Ed N. (Ed_N) (acc3d03a.ipt.aol.com - 172.195.208.58) on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 12:13 pm:

I'm still waiting for the Singapore Slinger to send Tom a piece of Paul Stine's shirt, driver's license, and/or the names of the losers she did drugs with in SF in 1968-74 who could verify her full-of-holes BS fairy story. IF she truly lived in the Bay Area during the time in question, her true name and address would also be nice, because that should be verifiable. IF (and that's a very big IF) SS is truly Z, then I'm also waiting for an admission of remorse in addition to the admission of guilt. I'd also like to hear her explain away all the obvious problems I (and others) have pointed out with her story. So far, we only have a vague cock-and-bull story with absolutely nothing to back it up (the DNA and fingerprints mean nothing, since they could have come from anyone, and I doubt Tom's had it tested either).

So, what we need is one or more of the following (and it's obvious SS has read the board and followed this), which I will list again for our beloved brain-damaged Singapore Slinger:

1) A piece of Stine's shirt;
2) Stine's driver's license;
3) your true name;
4) your place(es) of residence in the Bay Area from 1968-1974 (even if you rented a room in someone's house, which is otherwise unverifiable; give me the name of the owner to at least verify that fact);
5) the names and addresses of your junkie friends during the aforementioned period of time.

This is my challenge to you, Singapore Slinger. Since I know you are a fraud (and a very poor one at that), I know you will not even be able to supply me with anything that can be verified. OK, so you may not have anything left from your crime spree 34 years ago and counting (which I personally doubt; serial killers tend to save mementos), but you should be able to remember at least one name and address (preferrably yours, unless you're so brain-damaged that your drug-impaired memory can't even recall that simple fact).

Face it, you've been had, moron, and your hoax was pathetically transparent. It'll really be interesting to see if you even bother to send Tom another letter that contains/mentions anything I listed above. Surprise everyone and write Tom with real proof, halfwit.

By Peter H (Peter_H) (pool-141-154-26-43.bos.east.verizon.net - 141.154.26.43) on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 07:51 am:

Ed: WHy don't you quit sugar-coating 3everything? Give it to her straight!

By TheBlackJet (Theblackjet) (cache-mtc-ak04.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.96.201) on Thursday, March 06, 2003 - 10:31 am:

Ed, why do you insist that her fellow drug addicts confirm the story? What good would that do? Drug addicts are not known for being reputable, and the years of drug abuse probably scrambeled their memory. So them confirming or disconfirming the story wouldn't mean anything. You should know better than that.

By Ed N. (Ed_N) (acc3237c.ipt.aol.com - 172.195.35.124) on Thursday, March 06, 2003 - 11:41 pm:

TBJ: You are correct, junkies are not known for being reputable. What I'm after is not so much their confirmation of SS's fairy story, but some names and addresses that I can at least investigate, which will either prove or disprove that SS was here in the Bay Area back in the day. However, since I know that SS is a fraud through-and-through, it's really a challenge I put out there to show SS what a fool she is, because I know she can't provide squat because Z she ain't; silence from her only proves that we're right and that she's a liar who's been caught. I'd be honestly surprised if she dares to write Tom again, and if so, it won't have any of the proof we require for her to prove her identity.