|
Post by amerigochattin on Apr 4, 2016 10:59:04 GMT -6
Amerigo: That's it? How did Ross Sullivan even get to be a suspect? Do you know? Now, then. Do you know what it COSTS to prosecute a murder case? Do you know how much is in the Riverside DA's budget? Let me clue (get it?) you in on a few things I learned as an insurance investigator: 1. If cops don't get a confession, there will probably be no trial. 2. Short of a confession, the DA MIGHT try to bluff out a plea deal. 3. If, because of publicity or some other political pressure, the DA decides MAYBE to roll the dice on a trial, then the cost of that trial is going to bankrupt the DA's office. In a small town like Riverside, that means they need outside funding. Which they don't always get. IF the victim had a BIG life insurance policy, then the insurance company MIGHT be willing to help. In fact, in maybe HALF of murder cases, a life insurance company has paid half the cost of the investigation. And by "murder" cases, I mean cases when someone who is not a criminal is killed. Guess what? Most murders do NOT go to trial. Belieeeeeeeeeve me. Most murderers, IF convicted, are convicted (through plea bargain) of SOME OTHER CRIME, and John Law considers that a successful bid to get the perp off the streets for a while. You know why murder trials are always such big news? Because they NEVER HAPPEN. F'r examples: Son of Sam: Confession. Jeffrey Dahmer: Confession. Albert DeSalvo: Confession. O.J. Simpson: LA went for broke; LA went broke. See? RPD agonized over the HUGE financial gamble of putting Barnett on trial. He aaaaallllllllmost confessed. But without that confession . . . Now, wait a second here. I grew up in LA, and am very familiar with the City and County of Riverside and the Riverside County court system. I'm also an attorney with lots of friends who are prosecutors. And, yes, I am well familiar with the criminal justice process, and just how many cases are plead out, as compared to being tried. I'm also familiar with general policies regarding prosecution of capital cases (especially in California). Of course, all of this is a bit beside the point, because "Barnett" was never even arrested, let alone charged. As to Riverside and its finances, I am sorry to say that in this case, you're just plain wrong. Riverside County, which would handle the prosecution of a murder committed in the City of Riverside, is no "small town"; it has well north of 2 million people with an annual municipal budget of around $3 billion. This isn't Junction City, Illinois. Riverside County has a large, modern District Attorney's Office with a budget of about $40 million. Indeed, just last year, the Riverside County DA's Office prosecuted a cold case murder from 1972, without a police confession, and obtained a conviction against Michael Hayes for murdering Mary Costa. Riverside County does not seek to finance murder prosecutions through collateral sources (like life insurance policies). I'm not sure where you'd get this information that the Riverside County DA is too hard up for cash to undertake a murder prosecution, but it's not true. There is not a chance in the world that a prosecution of "Barnett" would "bankrupt" Riverside County. And, quite frankly, it doesn't help with your other arguments (which I otherwise find very persuasive about "the Zodiac") when you argue something like this. If anything, it starts to make me re-examine my conclusions. The role of the ( City of) Riverside Police Department in determining whether the Riverside County District Attorney's Office will prosecute a suspect is limited to the strength of the case and likelihood of conviction, not the finances of the County of Riverside nor its District Attorney's Office. So .... this all bring us back to the critical questions I have raised, to wit: If the case against Barnett is really that strong ( i.e., confession of a friend, which not only implicated Barnett, but also the friend himself) ..... where are the law enforcement files substantiating this?? Thomas, one of the reasons I have respected your work so much on the "Zodiac" case is that you have always been skeptical of Internet claims about what the facts really are, and instead have insisted on examining source documents, such as the actual, underlying law enforcement files. That is all I am asking for here. If the case against "Barnett" is as strong as you say, then there should be law enforcement files to support that. So where are they?
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Apr 4, 2016 12:05:04 GMT -6
I make NO claims about Barnett. Butterfield does that. Ask him. I got ALL of this from him. But when Graysmith claimed that RPD had no good suspects in the Bates case, he (and Avery) were flat out lying. RPD has loudly said so over and over and over. So, I tend to believe Butterfield when he says his direct sources in Riverside gave him this information, because it corroborates EVERYTHING they have ALWAYS said about the case. What have YOUR "friends" in Riverside tell YOU?
I don't care who your friends are, I WORKED IN THE BUSINESS and without financial support from the State, the DOJ, and yes, insurance companies, a LOT of that "detective" work and "forensics" you see on TV doesn't get done. $40 million? Peanuts. How much did the Nicole Simpson case ALONE cost LA? How much did the Amy Fischer case cost, and that wasn't even murder, and police had a confession. I know, I know, I know, they tell the VOTERS "we pursue every case no matter the cost." And that's a fucking lie. I KNOW. First hand. Not what my "friends" tell me. FIRST HAND. And it ain't just murder. Every year, THOUSANDS of rape kits get thrown out because PD's do not have the fucking money to pay for DNA tests in rape cases where there's no confession. It's not that they "don't believe" the victim. It's simply that they CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY FOR THE TESTS when they know they are not going to get a conviction.
Here's an idea—ask those "friends" of yours in such high places about "Barnett." The ones where you get all your other "inside information" about Riverside LE and how they do their jobs. They are MUCH BETTER CONNECTED to RPD than I am. Or Butterfield.
I'll say it AGAIN: I do NOT claim I could convict "Bob Barnett" of murdering Bates. But that's NOT the same thing as saying "Ross Sullivan" did it. Or "The Zodiac." For fuck's sake, NYPD, the BEST police department in the HISTORY OF THE WORLD, only "clears" 80 percent of their reported murders in a good year. Not convictions; just "cleared." SPFD? 40 percent. Decade after decade. Last I heard, Bates was still RPD's only "unsolved" murder. They say Barnett did it. I believe them. Just because they never got a conviction, does NOT mean the case is "unsolved." And it sure as shit doesn't implicate Sullivan. NOTHING implicates Sullivan. Unless you and your "friends" in the DA's office in Riverside know something we don't.
Don't take my word for ANYTHING. Read the files for yourself. It only took me 4,000 hours, but now that I've sorted them, collated them, weeded out the duplicates, and shook the new pages out of the FBI tree FOR YOU, it should be a piece of cake. If you (or those friends of yours) find ONE thing in those files I've been mistaken or wrong about, please let us know.
Better yet, in the time you've spent running around in circles on this thread, you could have simply asked aaaaaallllll those friends of yours in Riverside.
|
|
|
Post by amerigochattin on Apr 4, 2016 13:03:16 GMT -6
A few things ....
Thomas, first and foremost, I greatly appreciate all the work you've done on this case. Your approach has been tremendous IMO. On this particular issue of Barnett's guilt, I am more of a skeptic ... more than anything because I've seen law enforcement get locked into one suspect, particularly an ex-husband or ex-boyfriend. In that regard:
#1 I don't claim to have any connections in the City of Riverside Police Department. I know people who practice in Riverside County, but they're not going to know anything about the Bates case .... which is why I was so interested about LE files. I'm not sure why you're so heated on this issue. I'm simply asking for the same thing you've (rightly) sought in the other "Zodiac" cases. I don't expect you (or any private individual) to actually have those files; however, without having them, and knowing what the actual evidence is, it's very difficult to assess guilt in this case.
#2 Between 2000 and 2007 (last years we have data), the Riverside County DA's office obtained 20 death penalty sentences; that's roughly 2.5 per year. Obviously, these were all trial convictions on capital murder cases (the only types of cases resulting in death penalty sentences). I don't have data on the total number of homicide prosecutions during that period, but it certainly multiples of the number of death penalty sentences. There is no shortage of homicide trials in Riverside County every year. And, comparing any homicide trial to the Simpson prosecution (the longest, and most expensive, adjusted for inflation, trial in U.S. history) is a bit like comparing a two-bedroom house remodel to the Taj Mahal.
#3 On Barnett, I don't think it's even a matter of obtaining a conviction at this point. We would both be relying on information that apparently someone in law enforcement told to Michael Butterfield. For what it's worth, Butterfield himself doesn't seem to believe the information he was told. Now .... since Butterfield not only believes in "the Zodiac," but also believes that there is most likely a connection between the Zodiac and the Bates murder, he doesn't appear to be the most unbiased judge so to speak. But the fact that the source of the third/fourth-hand information himself doesn't believe it makes me even more skeptical.
#4 To reiterate: I have never said Ross Sullivan did it; merely, that he made for a decent suspect.
#5 I don't know why you're so heated about me reading the files obtained from the FBI that you've sorted through. As I've said repeatedly, I am greatly impressed by your work, you have largely convinced me there was no "Zodiac," and I think many, if not most, of your conclusions and theories about these murders are true, either in whole or in part.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Apr 6, 2016 12:08:38 GMT -6
Just because they got a conviction does not mean they had a TRIAL. Nor does it mean that ANY of those trials were CHEAP. Nor does it mean they brought every Homicide to trial.
For example, Berkowitz's "trial" lasted 45 minutes. He waived his right to a jury trial. He confessed. Now, most judges will not let a defendant plead guilty to murder without ordering a full trial. Berkowitz's case was a fishy exception.
Now, Butterfield SAYS that RPD told him that at the time, the DA just didn't think the chances of convicting Barnett without a confession were good enough to justify the expense. BELIEVE me, that is PERFECTLY PLAUSIBLE. Or don't believe me. Who cares? But your point was that, since the DA had a hard time justifying the cost of trial in which the verdict was in doubt (Hello, OJ!) then that somehow casts some kind reasonable doubt on Barnett's guilt. Believe me, it does NOT.
YOU tell ME: where, exactly, is the MYSTERY in the Bates case? I don't see one. I don't see ANY "mystery" at all. In the cases where we CAN all see the files in the other "Zodiac" murders, there wasn't any mystery. And according to Butterfield, there doesn't seem to be one here, either. Butterfield does lie sometimes, but no one has cast any doubt on this particular story of his. Have you asked HIM any of these questions?
We KNOW that the killer and an accomplice returned to the alley that night and tampered with the crime scene. Is it surprising that some of the physical evidence collected at that scene later turned out to cast some doubt on the prime suspects guilt? I mean, doesn't that CORROBORATE the confession of the friend who said he helped TAMPER WITH THAT CRIME SCENE? Whether THAT guy was telling the whole truth or not, we still KNOW it was tampered with. So, wouldn't THAT explain why SOME of the evidence does not point to Barnett?
Where's the mystery?
|
|
|
Post by amerigochattin on May 15, 2016 21:30:27 GMT -6
Just because they got a conviction does not mean they had a TRIAL. Nor does it mean that ANY of those trials were CHEAP. Nor does it mean they brought every Homicide to trial. For example, Berkowitz's "trial" lasted 45 minutes. He waived his right to a jury trial. He confessed. Now, most judges will not let a defendant plead guilty to murder without ordering a full trial. Berkowitz's case was a fishy exception. Now, Butterfield SAYS that RPD told him that at the time, the DA just didn't think the chances of convicting Barnett without a confession were good enough to justify the expense. BELIEVE me, that is PERFECTLY PLAUSIBLE. Or don't believe me. Who cares? But your point was that, since the DA had a hard time justifying the cost of trial in which the verdict was in doubt (Hello, OJ!) then that somehow casts some kind reasonable doubt on Barnett's guilt. Believe me, it does NOT. YOU tell ME: where, exactly, is the MYSTERY in the Bates case? I don't see one. I don't see ANY "mystery" at all. In the cases where we CAN all see the files in the other "Zodiac" murders, there wasn't any mystery. And according to Butterfield, there doesn't seem to be one here, either. Butterfield does lie sometimes, but no one has cast any doubt on this particular story of his. Have you asked HIM any of these questions? We KNOW that the killer and an accomplice returned to the alley that night and tampered with the crime scene. Is it surprising that some of the physical evidence collected at that scene later turned out to cast some doubt on the prime suspects guilt? I mean, doesn't that CORROBORATE the confession of the friend who said he helped TAMPER WITH THAT CRIME SCENE? Whether THAT guy was telling the whole truth or not, we still KNOW it was tampered with. So, wouldn't THAT explain why SOME of the evidence does not point to Barnett? Where's the mystery? One short note: The 20 death penalty sentences obtained in Riverside County from 2000 to 2007 all resulted from trial convictions. There is no plea bargain to the death penalty in California. I have already said my peace on the theory that physical evidence from Bates's thumb was planted; I won't rehash my thoughts on that.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Jun 3, 2016 20:47:49 GMT -6
A confession to police is NOT the same thing as a guilty plea in court. You can have a trial after a confession. In fact, in most cases, the judge will insist on a trial even if there is a guilty plea, if the charge is first degree murder. One rare and notable exception was the Berkowitz case. I don't understand why you're arguing with ME about all this. Argue with RPD. THEY'RE the ones who have issued press release after press release saying they're satisfied they know who killed CJB, and it was NOT connected to any of the "Zodiac" murders. I've never claimed that the Zodiac letters were a hoax because Bob Barnett killed CJB. All I've EVER claimed was, Graysmith lied when he said there were no good suspects in these murders. Well, there IS a good suspect in the CJB murder (just like all the rest of them.) What part of that are you arguing about?
Now, back to your 20 capital convictions. That alone should concpvince you that RPD are pretty competent. They are WAY more competent that SFPD. So, when they say they're satisfied that Bob Barnett most likely killed CJB, that carries quite a bit of weight. Doesn't it? Argue with THEM.
1. Now, you are ASSUMING that in those 20 convictions, there were zero confessions. That's an unwarranted assumption. Do have ANY verification of that? 2. No, I'm stil not clear on what you're saying about the hairs that were stuck to Cheri Jo's wrist. (You make it sound like they were stuck to the pad or middle joint of the thumb, clearly indicating that she had ripped them from her assailant's head. They weren't.) Are you saying you can prove they WEREN'T planted there? We KNOW that two people were in that alley monkeying around with the crime scene, Barnett's friend confessed to being the second person. Why is it so hard to admit that they MIGHT have planted evidence? The fact that the hairs don't match the one really, really good suspect (I'll say it again: h was on his way to confront her at the library, but somehow, he supposedly got there too late because "someone else" killed her first) suggests exactly that—the hairs were planted.) If the witness statement is true, and why would Bob's friend LIE about that? Why would his friend LIE about helping Bob tamper with the scene? I don't follow your logic here at all. In order for someone else to have murdered Cheri Jo, at least two FRIENDS of Barnett's would have to be involved in some kind of conspiracy to frame him. WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT? And let's say they DID conspire to frame Barnett. HTF does that tie the Bates murder to the Stine murder? Where is your logic?
According to RPD, who, last time I checked, are batting close to 1.000 on their homicides, Bob Barnett killed the girl he had previously assaulted and enlisted his friend to help him tamper with the evidence. The out of place hairs seem to CORROBORATE that theory, loooooooong before RPD had a way of knowing that. I don't see a mystery. Show me the mystery.
|
|
|
Post by ElderPop on Oct 30, 2016 9:21:19 GMT -6
Do you have physical evidence that shows Barnett's friend confessed to these things? If not then how did you derive this information?
|
|
|
Post by ElderPop on Oct 30, 2016 9:30:01 GMT -6
Do you have a photograph of Fashem Zayed that is contemporary to the Stine murder? Do you have any primary sources for his 97 arrest?
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Oct 31, 2016 4:56:44 GMT -6
Pop:
No photo of him in 1969. Only his mugshot in 1997.
|
|
|
Post by ElderPop on Nov 1, 2016 2:36:21 GMT -6
Pop: No photo of him in 1969. Only his mugshot in 1997. Is that photograph also in one of your books? If not could you post it? Or lead me in the direction of finding it? Thanks
|
|
|
Post by amerigochattin on Nov 30, 2017 15:15:24 GMT -6
A confession to police is NOT the same thing as a guilty plea in court. You can have a trial after a confession. In fact, in most cases, the judge will insist on a trial even if there is a guilty plea, if the charge is first degree murder. One rare and notable exception was the Berkowitz case. I don't understand why you're arguing with ME about all this. Argue with RPD. THEY'RE the ones who have issued press release after press release saying they're satisfied they know who killed CJB, and it was NOT connected to any of the "Zodiac" murders. I've never claimed that the Zodiac letters were a hoax because Bob Barnett killed CJB. All I've EVER claimed was, Graysmith lied when he said there were no good suspects in these murders. Well, there IS a good suspect in the CJB murder (just like all the rest of them.) What part of that are you arguing about? Now, back to your 20 capital convictions. That alone should concpvince you that RPD are pretty competent. They are WAY more competent that SFPD. So, when they say they're satisfied that Bob Barnett most likely killed CJB, that carries quite a bit of weight. Doesn't it? Argue with THEM. 1. Now, you are ASSUMING that in those 20 convictions, there were zero confessions. That's an unwarranted assumption. Do have ANY verification of that? 2. No, I'm stil not clear on what you're saying about the hairs that were stuck to Cheri Jo's wrist. (You make it sound like they were stuck to the pad or middle joint of the thumb, clearly indicating that she had ripped them from her assailant's head. They weren't.) Are you saying you can prove they WEREN'T planted there? We KNOW that two people were in that alley monkeying around with the crime scene, Barnett's friend confessed to being the second person. Why is it so hard to admit that they MIGHT have planted evidence? The fact that the hairs don't match the one really, really good suspect (I'll say it again: h was on his way to confront her at the library, but somehow, he supposedly got there too late because "someone else" killed her first) suggests exactly that—the hairs were planted.) If the witness statement is true, and why would Bob's friend LIE about that? Why would his friend LIE about helping Bob tamper with the scene? I don't follow your logic here at all. In order for someone else to have murdered Cheri Jo, at least two FRIENDS of Barnett's would have to be involved in some kind of conspiracy to frame him. WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT? And let's say they DID conspire to frame Barnett. HTF does that tie the Bates murder to the Stine murder? Where is your logic? According to RPD, who, last time I checked, are batting close to 1.000 on their homicides, Bob Barnett killed the girl he had previously assaulted and enlisted his friend to help him tamper with the evidence. The out of place hairs seem to CORROBORATE that theory, loooooooong before RPD had a way of knowing that. I don't see a mystery. Show me the mystery. Working my way back to this now more than a year later . . . "A confession to police is NOT the same thing as a guilty plea in court. You can have a trial after a confession. In fact, in most cases, the judge will insist on a trial even if there is a guilty plea, if the charge is first degree murder. One rare and notable exception was the Berkowitz case. I don't understand why you're arguing with ME about all this. Argue with RPD. THEY'RE the ones who have issued press release after press release saying they're satisfied they know who killed CJB, and it was NOT connected to any of the "Zodiac" murders." This entire debate is premised on evidence and reports of evidence that neither of us have seen. Your entire approach to the Hoax theory is based on you having finally reviewed the actual underlying law enforcement reports, and stopped listening to what cops said and what people wrote on the Internet. Yet, when it comes to the Bates murder, you seem to take the exact opposite approach: forget about actual police reports and just go with what some cop told Michael Butterfield. Here is a news article from the Press-Enterprise from one year ago (November 6, 2016). Here is what it says regarding the current police investigation: This sure doesn't sound like a case of the police being sure who the killer is and having moved on. Of course, it doesn't sound like Ross Sullivan either.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Dec 1, 2017 6:42:03 GMT -6
Amerigo:
Look, I appreciate all your posts. But you keep arguing with ME about something BUTTERFIELD came up with. Let me repeat AGAIN:
1. There is NO LINK between the Bates murder and any of the other so-called "Zodiac" murders. Unless someone can actually SHOW one. 2. Graysmith claimed there were no good suspects in any of the murders. Bullshit. There were GREAT suspects in ALL of them. Convictions? Maybe not. But that doesn't mean those murders are "unsolved." 3. For example, Benicia and Riverside have both publicly and repeatedly insisted that they consider the murders of David Faraday, Betty Lou Jensen, and Cheri Jo Bates more or less "solved," convictions, or no. And for obviously good reasons. Again, argue with them. 4. As I found, with no difficulty whatsoever, the other murders had very, very good suspects, too. The brother of one of them was just indicted in Santa Rosa on unconnected charges. 5. So, what? So, the claim that these murders are "unsolved" amd therefore the work of the "Zodiac Killer" is just baloney. OJ was "acquitted" of the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman, but that doesn't make that case "unsolved." The case against Barnett (not his real name, supposedly) is about as solid as the case against OJ. And the "case" against Ross Sullivan is an even bigger joke than the "case" against Arthur Leigh Allen. 6. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying I could get a conviction against Barnett. I'm just saying, there is no reason to call the Bates case "unsolved." That's all. 7. Well, no, I will say one more thing: If Ross Sullivan or anyone else murdered Cheri Jo, he got there 5 minutes ahead of Barnett. You know what would clear Barnett? If anyone of these "witnesses" from the library that night remembered Barnett asking around "have you seen Cheri Jo?" That would suggest he DIDN'T meet her outside.
Oh, BTW--Ross Sullivan died in 1977. So, there's no way he IS Barnett. Unless the guy they did the DNA test on wasn't Barnett, either.
|
|
|
Post by amerigochattin on Dec 1, 2017 11:37:41 GMT -6
1. There is NO LINK between the Bates murder and any of the other so-called "Zodiac" murders. Unless someone can actually SHOW one. Thomas, I think I have posted in here like a dozen times that I 100% completely agree with you on this. I have never stated I see any linked between this murder and the so-called Zodiac murders. 2. Graysmith claimed there were no good suspects in any of the murders. Bullshit. There were GREAT suspects in ALL of them. Convictions? Maybe not. But that doesn't mean those murders are "unsolved." 3. For example, Benicia and Riverside have both publicly and repeatedly insisted that they consider the murders of David Faraday, Betty Lou Jensen, and Cheri Jo Bates more or less "solved," convictions, or no. And for obviously good reasons. Again, argue with them. 4. As I found, with no difficulty whatsoever, the other murders had very, very good suspects, too. The brother of one of them was just indicted in Santa Rosa on unconnected charges. Again, as I have said all along, having read your books I 100% agree with you on this. 5. So, what? So, the claim that these murders are "unsolved" and therefore the work of the "Zodiac Killer" is just baloney. OJ was "acquitted" of the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman, but that doesn't make that case "unsolved." The case against Barnett (not his real name, supposedly) is about as solid as the case against OJ. And the "case" against Ross Sullivan is an even bigger joke than the "case" against Arthur Leigh Allen. I just cannot say this strong enough -- having now said it like two dozen times in this thread -- I do not believe the Cheri Jo Bates murder was the work of any "Zodiac Killer." I am otherwise almost 100% on-board with your analysis of the case, as argued in your books. Where I sharply disagree with you is on the treatment of "Barnett." Let me again make my point here, because for some reason there seems to be a major disconnect between us when it comes to the evidence against "Barnett" in the Cheri Jo Bates murder: #1 I am fully willing to believe that Barnett did it; I just want to see what the actual evidence is -- not what some cop told Michael Butterfield a dozen years ago -- but the actual evidence. #2 Your approach to the entire "Zodiac Killer" phenomenon and all of the associated crimes and correspondence has been to apply heavy skepticism to all claims made in literature and on the Internet, and, instead, to review for yourself the actual evidence, as reflected in law enforcement files. It is because of this approach that I have respected your work on the "Zodiac" case and that you have so strongly persuaded me. When it comes to "Barnett" and his guilt in the Bates case, all I am asking for is the same approach, to wit: to see the actual evidence -- not reports made to Michael Butterfield, not some statement made in some department press release, but the actual evidence -- against "Barnett" in assessing his guilt. I don't know why that is asking so much. #3 I continue to be baffled why you keep comparing the case against "Barnett" to the evidence against O.J. Simpson. As I have reiterated time and time again, this comparison is not only highly dubious, it actually undermines other arguments you make. The evidence against O.J. Simpson did NOT involve an eye witness, but did involve a mountain of DNA evidence -- at the crime scene, in O.J.'s vehicle, on O.J.'s clothes, at O.J.'s house -- all of it decisively pointing toward the guilt of O.J., and no one else. The "evidence" (and I put that in quotes, because it's really "claimed evidence," none of us have seen it) against "Barnett" is the EXACT OPPOSITE: the DNA evidence left at the scene appears to EXCULPATE "Barnett," NOT INCRIMINATE him; rather, the "evidence" is apparently an eye witness confession that neither of us has seen nor read. This alleged confession, that neither of us has seen nor read, also apparently incriminated that "eye witness," at a minimum, for the crime of obstructing justice and/or tampering with a crime scene. And yet, there were never any charges brought against this man or "Barnett." Applying the same scrutinizing approach that you used when it comes to the so-called canonical "Zodiac" attacks, we should be highly skeptical of these supposed claims of a confession, until we see actual evidence, at minimum in the form of case files, supporting this allegation. #4 As to Ross Sullivan, I am not particularly interested in the guy one way or another. Once again, I have said like a dozen times in this thread alone that I don't think Sullivan is a "Zodiac Killer" or has anything to do with the attacks at Lake Herman Road, Blue Rock Springs, Lake Berryessa or on the cab driver in Presidio Heights. However, when it comes to Cheri Jo Bates -- again, NOT a "Zodiac" victim -- if "Barnett" did not in fact do it ("Barnett" very well may have, I just want to see evidence), then, in that case, there are apparently some oddities about Sullivan that at least make for him as a possible suspect. Again, a comparison to Arthur Leigh Allen, when it comes to the murder of Bates, is a bit ridiculous. Unlike Allen, we can actually document that Sullivan had means and opportunity to kill Bates. He was in the vicinity at the time of the crime; he changed his pattern of behavior following the crime; and people who knew him were suspicious of him for committing the crime. That is the kind of stuff you find with actual murders; not like the situation with Allen at all. 6. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying I could get a conviction against Barnett. I'm just saying, there is no reason to call the Bates case "unsolved." That's all. It's not me who is calling the Bates case "unsolved," it's the Riverside Police Department that is calling it unsolved. It is an active case that Detective Jim Simons is attempting to solve. That is literally the dictionary definition of "unsolved." I will say one more thing: If Ross Sullivan or anyone else murdered Cheri Jo, he got there 5 minutes ahead of Barnett. You know what would clear Barnett? If anyone of these "witnesses" from the library that night remembered Barnett asking around "have you seen Cheri Jo?" That would suggest he DIDN'T meet her outside. Oh, BTW--Ross Sullivan died in 1977. So, there's no way he IS Barnett. Unless the guy they did the DNA test on wasn't Barnett, either. Detective Simons has a person of interest he is looking into, in order to solve the case. That person of interest clearly IS NOT Sullivan; on that we can definitely agree.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Dec 9, 2017 8:39:23 GMT -6
Amerigo: Aaaaaaallllll I'm saying is, there's not much mystery to the Bates "case." Unless someone can discredit the Barnett "leak." And the fact that Riverside PD (who have "solved" every Homicide of theirs except the Bates case) has turned up ZERO additional suspects pretty much proves "Barnett" is the ONLY one. Just because OJ wasn't convicted doesn't make the Brown/Goldman case "unsolved." That's aaaaallllll I'm saying. And it only matters to me because it flat contradicts the Zodiac Myth about there being no good suspects in supposedly unsolved murders.
Did the same person(s) who wrote the Zodiac letters also wrote (some) of the Bates letters? Maybe. Ooooorrrrr, maybe that's where they got the idea. Like the Tim Holt comic book being the source of "by knife..." Etc. Interesting, but what does it prove?
I mean, when you find new info on the Bates case, post it. A million thanks. But I'm going to clean up all this back and forth hair splitting over the meaning of the word "unsolved." Fair enough?
|
|
smithy
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by smithy on Sept 30, 2018 14:46:58 GMT -6
The "Bates Must Die" letters look NOTHING like the Zodiac letters. How're you doing Mr H? All good? Long time! This image looks better upside-down perhaps. Not sure if I've shared it with you before - or indeed if I stole it from somewhere else. Anyway, FYI. Letters - nope, not so similar. Envelopes, yep.
|
|