- Posts: 1276
- Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 6:42 pm
Lucifer's Angel wrote:Pardon me, but I still cannot rule out the possibility that she might have been less than forthright with you, your interviewing skills notwithstanding.
She was more than forthcoming with me, very generous and helpful, answered all of my questions, and did her best to be as helpful as she could without crossing that line into telling me what she may have thought I wanted to hear. She gave this matter proper respect and consideration, and I have no doubt that she was forthcoming and honest. I've spent years interviewing people-- including many people who were just lying through their teeth-- and I have no doubt that Patricia Hautz was more than forthright. I can understand that you might be unwilling to accept my word on the matter, and I hope you'll also understand that I am perhaps equally unwilling to accept the baseless notion that Patricia Hautz was somehow deceiving me or concealing some important information.
And, glurk, please accept this in the spirit in which it was intended-- I would ask you to ask yourself the following question: Why do you think she gave me permission to post that she had written the letter and addressed the envelope? Why do you think she said that was her writing on the envelope? Why do you think she wrote, “After reading the weird interpretations of the letter, I can’t help but say that sometimes (this time) it’s like Hemingway stated, ‘The boy is a boy, and the fish is a fish.’” She wrote, "this time," as in, regarding the Hautz letter. Sometimes-- this time-- a letter is just a letter. I know that people want everything wrapped up in a nice little package, but, in all honesty, the ongoing "questions" seem to be little more than clumsy inferences that Patricia is somehow misleading me, or I am somehow misleading the public. Patricia Hautz took responsibility for writing the letter and for addressing the envelope, and I don't know what more anyone wants or needs in that regard. My apologies if I don't share the zeal to keep this issue on life support long after its natural death.
- Posts: 1276
- Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 6:42 pm
I'm satisfied. I'll put this one to bed. I never had any real doubt that the letter was in fact from Hautz, a "fellow student." I apologize if I have ruffled feathers or caused any grief - not my intent. I do realize that others are still going to question this, but that will be their own issue, and I'll not comment further, I'm quite convinced..
I understand. I certainly have spent my time asking questions, and I knew I would face scrutiny. People will have questions but, at some point, I feel that this issue stands for itself, and her statements do as well. I appreciate your comments, and your respect.
This doesn't pertain to you, glurk, at all, but this entire issue reminds me of the controversy when SFPD Officer Armand Pelissetti told me that Fouke confessed to him and then retracted the story almost immediately. He said that Fouke talked to him about stopping someone. I then asked him why, if this was true, he had also said that he didn't believe Fouke had stopped anyone. He said, "I don't see how he could have," and then proceeded to explain the events of that night, etc. When I asked him to reconcile this statement with his story of a Fouke confession, I asked him, "Did Fouke say to you that he had stopped someone that night, or that he was accused of stopping someone that night?" Pelissetti said, "That's a good question," and admitted that he did not know the answer. He simply remembered Fouke saying something about it. Once Pelissetti got in front of Fincher's documentary cameras, the producers knew all about this issue and did their best to milk it for all it was worth without asking any of the questions which would expose the cracks in the Fouke confession story. When I asked Pelissetti to explain his comments during COLD CASE FILES (ie: mentioning that a unit has stopped someone that night), he said he had no personal knowledge of any stop, other than Fouke's vague comments. He said Fouke was a good cop and that he would have to defer to Fouke on this issue.
In the years since, this issue has grown to ridiculous proportions, and Fouke has been vilified, and Pelissetti's version of the story is given precedence by many. Me? I have to use common sense, rely on the facts, and exercise logic, and I am driven to the inescapable conclusion that Fouke was simply stating a fact-- that he was accused of stopping the Zodiac yet didn't do so. This is what Pelissetti remembers, and the vague conversation decades ago is unclear in his mind. Those who want the plausible truth will note all of the facts in a context while those who want to maintain the "Fouke is lying" scenario will ignore the obvious problems here in favor of their needs. The Patricia Hautz story is no different-- common sense, facts, and logic all lead to one inescapable conclusion, and, more importantly, the alternatives are simply unworthy of further consideration.
I hope I didn't bore you with that, but this is how I feel. Thanks for listening.
Lucifer's Angel wrote:Understood, Mike - thanks for clarifying. Pardon me, but I still cannot rule out the possibility that she might have been less than forthright with you, your interviewing skills notwithstanding. I appreciate, however, that you did your best.
There were many other students at RS back then. Does that mean they all knew something? No. Hautz was a random person who wrote a letter. There’s no reason to believe she knew something the other students didn't.
There’s an interesting analogy. When O’Hare was accused of being Z, he gave a reporter an interview saying that he wasn’t Z. Nevertheless the reporter insisted, "But you must know something about it." To which O’Hare replied, “"No, I mustn’t. Are you out of your mind?"
It’s similar with Hautz. “But there’s an internet guy who doesn’t believe you. You must know something about Z...”
Bullitt wrote:This is going to be as difficult to let go of as it was for many people to let go of Allen as a serious suspect and Graysmith as an honest and serious investigator.
Hopefully not. Nobody expected a cartoonist from the SF Chronicle to twist the truth to make his pet suspect look guilty. Reasonable that some people still can’t believe it.
But in Hautz’ case it was (actually) clear from the beginning that it was just a student who wrote the letter; which eventually has been confirmed. Still insisting that there must be something behind it, is nothing else than obsession.
Bullitt wrote:Quite right, it was pretty clear from the beginning. However, considering the fact that she wrote about the killer of CJB who has been linked to Z (if he was not actually Z himself), her name ended with a Z, no one ever located her before now and some of the writing on the envelope appears Z-like, it's understandable that one might conclude that the letter was indeed written by Z as a joke or a taunt.
I admit I initially thought the RS desktop poem was written by Z. But given the similarities between the Hautz letter and the poem, I now strongly doubt it: The author of the poem wrote about the death of a girl (that could be connected to CJB), no one could identify the author despite the initials ‘RH’ are given, the handwriting looks similar, the most reasonable explanation is the same (namely that it was written by a student).
I said before that I felt a lesson could be drawn from the Hautz letter, and I believe the lesson is that we might be reading too much into things like the Desktop poem and other mysteries IMHO.
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:39 am
Very excellent research, Mr. Butterfield. I know others will continue to hold onto their theories but this shows certainty that the Hautz letter is not related to the case of Zodiac. Very good analysis of the handwriting as well. I certainly support your opinion on the writing and your conclusions on the postmark.
Living IN America does not make you an American; Living FOR America does.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests