The author of the confession letter used the same mimicry on November 29th 1966 by taking phrases and inspiration from the Riverside Press-Enterprise newspaper on November 24th 1966. This newspaper article was about another 19-year-old female college student, who was offered a ride in a man's car and then attacked, just like the claims in the confession letter five days later. The newspaper article stated that the man "grabbed her around the neck". The confession letter author typed "I grabbed her around the neck with my hand over her mouth". The newspaper article stated "I could just hit you in the head with this piece of wood". The confession letter author typed "She let out a scream once and I kicked her in the head to shut her up". The assailant mentioned in the newspaper stated "I'm not Jack the Ripper". The confession letter author typed "But I shall cut off her female parts and deposit them for the whole city to see". At one point the assailant offered to "take her home", with the confession letter author typing he "would give her a lift home".
On October 19th 1966, eleven days before the murder of Cheri Jo Bates, The Riverside Daily Press ran an article about David Karp's original drama series on ABC Stage 67. It ran from September 14th 1966 to May 4th 1967, featuring 26 episodes. The episode immediately before the murder of Cheri Jo Bates, aired on October 19th 1966, was entitled "The Confession", in which a lieutenant who was unaware of the latest Supreme Court ruling on murder confessions, attempts to coerce a confession from murder suspect Brandon de Wilde.
On June 13th 1966 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, was a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that law enforcement in the United States must warn a person of their constitutional rights before interrogating them, or else the person's statements or confession cannot be used as evidence at their trial. Specifically, the Court held that under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the government cannot use a person's statements made in response to an interrogation while in police custody as evidence at the person's criminal trial unless they can show that the person was informed of the right to consult with a lawyer before and during questioning, and of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning, and that the defendant not only understood these rights but also voluntarily waived them before answering questions.