Labyrinth13

[MikeM Profile]

As promised, part one of Penn's military records are in the Gareth Penn section.

[Michael Butterfield Profile]

Mike M: I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm over-stating an objection -- in fact, I don't think that an objection to the "he only meant to wound them" theory can be overstated. In truth, there is no "evidence" to support this theory, and there cannot be. The evidence clearly indicates that he meant to kill -- or at the very least, inflict potentially fatal wounds. Unless the SFPD has a note from the Zodiac saying, "I only meant to wound them" the SFPD cannot possibly have anything but suspicions.

I, too, spoke to Ken Narlow about that issue: No one believes that the Zodiac only intended to wound, but, rather, that the possibility was initially considered solely on the basis that two male victims survived. As I said -- and no one has come close to rebutting -- the killer's actions clearly prove this theory false, no matter what someone claims that that SFPD thinks. Unless you can provide a source and a specific point, claiming that the SFPD has "evidence" or whatever is nothing more than a wholly unsubstantiated claim that is refuted by all of the known evidence as well as the investigators. I know some may think it's an over-stated objection, but, in all honesty, I can't see how any reasonably intelligent person could even broach this subject seriously. My apologies.

As for "vomit" or something in the cab, there is no record of that, and, further, no one who was at the scene has ever mentioned that, even in candid discussions. Again, this sounds suspiciously like something someone said or thinks rather than any opinion or position adopted or embraced by any investigators. The presence of vomit is no indication that the killer was drinking, unless that vomit was tested for alcohol. However, even that is no proof - we don't know that it's the killer's vomit. Lastly, if the killer did vomit, it may have been a reaction to being covered in the victim's blood, or nerves. Who knows. Again, I'd rather that this board not become a place for implausible speculation and unsubstantiated rumors. If someone has some evidence, can cite a source, or provide an adequate explanation, then that's different, but right now, I'm hearing a lot of things just tossed out without any reference or substance. Just had to say that.

Morf -- In 1999, I talked with Det. Steve Shumway who was then in charge of the Bates case. He told me -- in no uncertain terms -- that Bates was the victim of an O.J.-like rage killing, and that she had been stabbed as many as 42 times. The number of stab wounds served as the basis for the theory that Bates knew the killer, i.e. that the rage must have been something personal. As anyone who has studied crime can tell you, this theory is absurd, and there are thousands of cases in which a total stranger inflicted unspeakable violence on another stranger in a fit of non-personal rage.

Then the DNA testing failed to implicate their pet suspect. Then the autopsy reports leaked, proving that Bates was actually stabbed less than ten times total. So, it's clear that the RPD was either actively engaged in deception or embracing deliberate ignorance. Either way, it's clear that their theory of the case has completely fallen apart, leaving the Zodiac as the only logical suspect. If the RPD were to admit that they had made a mistake and had been investigating and blaming the wrong suspect for more than 40 years, they would not only be forced to admit that they let a murderer remain free, but that the killer most likely went on to claim even more lives due to their failure. My own research has led me to believe that the RPD will never admit this mistake and, therefore, they will never solve the Bates murder.

[Bullitt Profile]

The idea that there was evidence the killer did not intend to kill his male victims doesn't mean he didn't intend to kill them. It just means the SFPD, in their mountains of information on this case, have or had some evidence to that effect. I don't find it at all hard to believe. In fact, Ken Narlow said his department looked into as much because two of the three male victims survived. That in and of itself is evidence.

What that tells me is something completely different. It says to me that Z, while he may have been book-smart about weapons, he was otherwise incompetent in their use, and further, may not have even liked killing but did it for other reasons entirely.

And puts things in a completely different perspective, doesn't it?

[zodiac]

Yes, and the notion that he demonstrated any real knowledge of weapons has no basis in fact, either.

[Bullitt Profile]

About the only thing that does suggest some prior knowledge is the "cotton surgical tape" (LB report, p. 24) that Hartnell observed was wrapped around the knife's handle. Only someone familiar with such things would know that the handle gets slippery once blood gets on it, and you may end up cutting yourself on the knife as you stab your victim and your hand slides down onto the blade. Where that familiarity came from is anyone's guess: he'd done it before and found out the hard way, learned about it in prison from another inmate, or read about it in a true crime book/novel/whatever.

[morf13 Profile Website]

Michael Butterfield wrote:

"Morf -- In 1999, I talked with Det. Steve Shumway who was then in charge of the Bates case. He told me -- in no uncertain terms -- that Bates was the victim of an O.J.-like rage killing, and that she had been stabbed as many as 42 times. The number of stab wounds served as the basis for the theory that Bates knew the killer, i.e. that the rage must have been something personal. As anyone who has studied crime can tell you, this theory is absurd, and there are thousands of cases in which a total stranger inflicted unspeakable violence on another stranger in a fit of non-personal rage.
Then the DNA testing failed to implicate their pet suspect. Then the autopsy reports leaked, proving that Bates was actually stabbed less than ten times total. So, it's clear that the RPD was either actively engaged in deception or embracing deliberate ignorance. Either way, it's clear that their theory of the case has completely fallen apart, leaving the Zodiac as the only logical suspect. If the RPD were to admit that they had made a mistake and had been investigating and blaming the wrong suspect for more than 40 years, they would not only be forced to admit that they let a murderer remain free, but that the killer most likely went on to claim even more lives due to their failure. My own research has led me to believe that the RPD will never admit this mistake and, therefore, they will never solve the Bates murder."

I agree with you 100% on this, and Shumway is the SAME Detective that told me that "CHERI JO BATES WAS NOT A ZODIAC VICTIM" , and I feel really sorry for her family as they too may be victims of shotty police work.

Pride is a stubborn thing! Instead of admitting they may have been wrong, RPD was too proud to ask for help, or look at other options. As soon as there was verification that Z was involved in at least one of the Bates case letters, and the desktop poem, they should have teamed up with the other jurisdictions, and pooled their resources.

Now the question is, did Cheri know Z? If its true that she spent alot of time after finding out her car wouldnt start with her killer (Zodiac?) that would seem to indicate that she knew him or wasnt afraid of him.

Michael, this is one thing we discussed, in the "confession letter", the writer, who is most likely her killer, and Z in my opinion mentioned "Her breast felt very warm and firm under my hands". This may indicate he was interested in her in a sexual way. And if Z killed Domingos & Edwards, weren't her breasts exposed also by her killer? If Z was responsible for both of these attacks, it shows a sexual angle. That is something we may have disagreed on. I think that he got some kind of sexual pleasure out of it whether he sexually assaulted any women or not. There was no clear evidence that Z was into rape or sexual assault, but then again ,besides Paul Stine, all of the other attacks had a second male figure there. Who knows what Z may have done if he was alone, and felt safe with e female?

[teacups Profile]

About the only thing that does suggest some prior knowledge is the "cotton surgical tape" (LB report, p. 24) that Hartnell observed was wrapped around the knife's handle. Only someone familiar with such things would know that the handle gets slippery once blood gets on it, and you may end up cutting yourself on the knife as you stab your victim and your hand slides down onto the blade...

I agree with this theory and I've wondered, too, if perhaps he realized that a knife can actually break during stabbing, especially if the knife blade is striking bone.

At first I embraced the "kill / wound" theory (i.e. kill = females / wound = males), and I realized that was probably ludicrous. I do wonder if these were "kill / overkill" instead (kill = males / overkill = females). I can see where he may have attempted to execute Mageau with a shot to the temple and missed due to Mageau's movement. But it's hard for me to justify Hartnell's 6-7 wounds versus Shepard's 24, Faraday's 1 versus Jensen's 5. No easy, pat answers.

Should we start a new thread for discussion of the wounds? I don't want to sabotage this one on "Labyrinth".

[Bullitt Profile]

Probably not a bad idea. But I will point out that Shepard was actually stabbed 10 times, not 24.

[teacups Profile]

I had questioned that myself, and I can't recall what source I read that stated 24 wounds. Ah well.

[Bullitt Profile]

You read that in Zodiac, p. 74. In T17, p. 36, Penn claimed it was 10. It's interesting to note that "Authorities Seek 'Madman'," by L Pierce Carson (Napa Valley Register, 9-29-1969, p. 2A), states:

The six-foot, husky man then stabbed the boy in the back about 10 times and turned on the girl whom he stabbed about 7 times in the back and abdomen.

However, we know for a fact that Hartnell was actually stabbed 6 times, according the LB report, p. 24 and the LBDOJ report, p. 6.