THE HUNT FOR ZODIAC BY MIKE RODELLI

2/16/2018

Click image for link

Mike Rodelli, an avid Zodiac researcher and regular contributor to the Zodiackillersite forum has recently released a book examining Kjell Qvale as the notorious Zodiac Killer. Entitled 'The Inconceivable Double Life of a Notorious Serial Killer-The Hunt for Zodiac,' it is a thorough and comprehensive analysis of every aspect of the Zodiac crimes from the perspective of his suspect, as well as a valuable resource on the case as a whole.
Kjell Qvale was a Norwegian-American business executive born in Trondheim, Norway on July 7th 1919, who established a business in San Francisco and resided near the final confirmed Zodiac murder of Paul Stine on October 11th 1969. He lived at 3636 Jackson Street, a residence that overlooked the Presidio Park, and the last place Zodiac was observed heading by eyewitnesses reported in the San Francisco Chronicle on October 12th 1969. The Zodiac would eventually seize his moment and escape from the park as the motorcycles were circling. But did he escape from West Pacific Avenue via the gate to the rear of 3634 Jackson Street and view the unfolding events from the safety of his home.
To answer these pertinent questions and many more about Kjell Qvale being the infamous Zodiac Killer, follow the link provided.
Amazon books:

The Hunt for Zodiac: The Inconceivable Double Life of a Notorious Serial Killer

Ray Jenkins

2/16/2018 01:06:12 pm

I've said it before and I will say it again: "WILL THE REAL ZODIAC KILLER PLEASE STAND UP?"

Connolly

2/17/2018 10:03:42 am

CIA

Ray Jenkins

2/17/2018 03:06:04 pm

Well if he was CIA we have nothing to worry about. They would have summarily "dealt" with him many years ago. So case closed!

Corey Hagler

5/27/2018 07:38:21 pm

He was poor, not even middle class. He had a job more than likely a school teacher and lived in apartments. I think he was a sports gambler and had a problem with it. Not really worried about a retirement. He was just very smart and lived a fantasy life. I don’t think he was married and had no children, he served in the military and was very much a recluse.

Rubislaw 32 link

2/17/2018 11:45:28 am

There is someone I know,who was President of their Automobile Society,at University,in 1965,his final year.

He was subsequently suspended from that final year,for running a book theft scam,from the University libraries.

Now,that's a ''lethal'' Zodiac combination [?].

This apart,my wager would be on the love child of Miss Marple and Walter Mitty.

But,the CIA,might not be far off the mark,''Connolly''.

Greg

2/17/2018 12:32:58 pm

Read the free preview of this book last night and decided to go ahead and purchase it for $11.99.
Hoping the author is able to present a case for his suspect. Just approaching it as a layman, you have to wonder how one reconciles the age of the so-called Mr. X (50 in 1969), with testimonies from the likes of Hartnell and Mageau who said Zodiac was probably in his 20s. Obviously the account of Fouke implies Zodiac may have been 35-45, but the likes of him being 50 starts getting a bit dicey. Always wondered as well how Mr. X, who grew up in Norway, would not give himself away by virtue of an accent he most probably retained. My own grandfather spent his early years in Norway and was difficult to understand due to how thick his accent was. Slover, Slaight, Hartnell assuredly would have detected a non-American drawl.
Will see how Mike Rodelli handles these obstacles. Seems like an interesting read regardless.

Ray Jenkins

2/17/2018 03:14:27 pm

I am getting so tired of these endless Zodiac books. They keep coming as thick and fast as documentaries. Another author putting the spotlight on a "special" suspect and presenting the thrill of "maybes" and "what ifs". I do respect the fact that many work tirelessly to present cases that are convincing but, at the same time, highly circumstantial.

Frankly, I could not be bothered reading the review let alone buying it.

Maybe if someone like an impartial ex-detective can arrange for a complete review of the evidence in its totality, and do some in-depth and professional fingerprint analysis and DNA profiling, I may renew my interest in the case. For now I am content to leave this mysterious leftover carcass of Zodiac for the vultures to pick over.

Greg

2/17/2018 04:02:34 pm

I agree Ray. It is often to the point where after so much time and so many years of going back and forth on suspects and particulars, one wonders where, if anyplace, the Zodiac conversation is leading. Richard's site thankfully keeps it lively and interesting. I was looking for something to read in order to relax and escape for a bit so I decided to give this book a shot. It is a tough sell that Mr. X could be the killer, but I'm willing to hear the author out. Rodelli seems to have a good reputation as a Zodiac researcher. I'll let you know my opinion on the book.

Judith N Chapman

2/17/2018 04:25:45 pm

It would be nice for someone to do a study based on just confirmed evidence only. For example we do not know for a fact that Fouke saw the Zodiac Killer. We do know Mike Mageau saw him as well as the kids in San Francisco. We have physical descriptions from people who witnessed him killing, but everybody wants to drag in the Berryessa sketch, Fouke's memory of some guy he thinks was zodiac. it gets a little ridiculous. Focus on the known facts and create a profile from there. On an interesting side note I have communicated with my sister who was very close to Peter from 1970 on. she was going to look at old photos for me and said hey I have some greeting cards that Peter gave us. waiting for the results

Greg

2/17/2018 05:08:32 pm

That is not a bad idea Judith. There is a lot of dubious testimony that indeed seems to muddy the waters. Going back to the idea that the Zodiac conversation is circular, never leading to where we collectively intend it going: a resolution. In many ways I guess it's comparable to a philosopher's quest to find the meaning of life. Or maybe even a spiritual person's searching for God. Can such journies ever be tangibly resolved beyond a subjective understanding? I think the attempted apprehension of the phantom known as Zodiac has similarities to these other examples. We may just be dancing in the dark with all this (just as seekers will only know some of the world but never all of it); it's probably never going to be solved, but such is life.

Ray Jenkins

2/17/2018 10:46:01 pm

Agreed about the original evidence, but I am kind of left wondering how anyone can separate fact from fiction in testimony that is so many decades old, and in some cases the persons are no longer alive or getting elderly? Going back over old testimonies will just give you the same information. If it was wrong or dubious back then, well it will still be wrong and dubious now, won't it? I guess all cases have gaps and discrepancies, but there do seem to be an awful lot of these in the Zodiac case.

A thorough look at all the material evidence being held by various sheriff's offices and the FBI is what is really needed. This evidence should be collated by LE so that it can be examined in its totality and together. The material evidence needs to be difficult to refute, but there are of course problems there too. Fingerprint and DNA contamination is but one problem, and I would suggest that any such investigator should only look at the evidence that has, by consensus, been attributed to the Zodiac. All else, such as the Fairfield letter and other possible hoaxes, should be viewed separately.

I am sure that this will happen at some time in future, but whether or not we can expect a less confusing outcome regarding the identity of the killer will remain to be seen. I am however certain that some kind of in-depth analysis by a group of competent professionals is required: an official enquiry into the Zodiac case, for example. Of course I will not be holding my breath, considering the huge number of unsolved cases that exist in California alone. The Friendly murders may never be resolved, as just one example. We can but hope.

Rubislaw 32 link

2/18/2018 01:48:24 am

Wholeheartedly agree on your reference to the ''unconfirmed'' correspondences,Ray.

At least ''someone'' should put them aside,and re-examine them...perhaps as a separate entity.

Over the years,a fair percentage appear to have ''filtered'' in to the public domain,by a number of routes....by ''fair means or foul'',if you will.

Equally,a fair percentage,that the public are aware of,can only be viewed,in ''poor quality'' copy form.

I would be interested,if anyone knows the last actual time that a correspondence,was actually ''deemed'' authentic,by the authorities.

It may well be the April 1978 letter [....that city pig Toschi..],that was ordered to be re-examined,after the ''fan mail'' scandal,involving Toschi,himself.

Perhaps,that may be a reason why the authorities,don't want to ''re-visit'' the arena of ''confirmed/unconfirmed'' [?].

I believe that the main frustration for the amateur sleuth is,that the so-called professionals don't appear to have out altruistic values,regard the case.

Where these professionals are employed,their workplace is often understaffed,and find themselves doubling up on other cases.

Many cold case units require charity monies,to keep them afloat,in these times of austerity and public cost cutting exercises.

Finally,I would just like to add,that some Zodiac contributors seem to think that ''directives'' on the case,emanate from the places of the crimes....more particularly,San Francisco and its vicinity.

This is simply untrue.

The ''power'' actually comes from Washington and Sacramento.

Maybe not ideal,and a good distance from the bereaved of victims,and historical legacies [?].

Mike Rodelli

2/17/2018 08:25:56 pm

Hi,

Greg, you have the right attitude. Read my book before judging it a waste of your time. My book is different from other books on the case in that I supply many proven facts. I have 194 footnotes in this version of it. My book was longer and had about 225 footnotes, I think, before editing.

As for KQ having a strong Norwegian accent, I did not address that in my book because he did not have a distinctive Norwegian one after living in the US for forty years by the time 1969 rolled around. It never occurred to me to address that. The one thing he did have was a distinctive way of speaking that was described in two articles as being SLOW. That is how Z's manner of speech was described. While KQ did not have a Norwegian accent in 1969, he MAY have learned to speak English slowly when he moved to the US in 1929, so as to be understood through the accent he probably had back then.

In the 2000s when he was in his nineties, KQ was said to look like he was in his 60s. I'll leave it to you to extrapolate back to what he would have looked like at the age of forty.

Enjoy the book. I think that if you read it, you may see the real Zodiac finally stand up and reveal himself. At least that is what one of the fathers of behavioral profilers, Richard Walter, feels.

Mike

Howard Miller

2/17/2018 10:29:41 pm

Sadly every other author has said the same thing about their respective books. And quantity of footnotes cannot be taken as a measure of truth or, for that matter, accuracy.

But perhaps a PhD in criminology (or in this case Zodiac-ology?) could be awarded to some of the better of the thesis to date?

Mike Rodelli

2/18/2018 06:41:25 am

Hi,

Well, Howard, footnotes do precisely what you say that don't do. They ensure accuracy of the details I cite because I am giving you the opportunity to retrace my steps and see the original source of what I am saying, not just take my word for it. So even if you disagree with my thesis of who Zodiac was, you can rest assured that my case is built on facts for better or worse.

I did not want my book to resemble in any way the debacle that was "The Most Dangerous Game of All,"the main (handwriting) evidence of which I was able to disprove in about a week. In contrast, I provide proven facts that I use to come to a conclusion, which is the definition of deductive reasoning.

Books like Lyndon Lafferty's "The Silenced Badge" were criticized for not having any references and now you are finding a way to criticize me for providing references. So it's sort of like a guy can't win. But I already knew that from years of involvement with the case.

Honestly, I really did not write my book for people like you and Ray, since you know before you would even read it that I am wrong about my suspect, so why bother? My book was really written for people who don't already know who Zodiac was.

Mike

Mike Rodelli

2/18/2018 06:46:22 am

...or rather, who Zodiac WASN'T.

Mike

Mike Rodelli

2/18/2018 09:23:19 am

Sadly, for people like me, there is no "Edit" option here. ;) Corrected version of my earlier post:

Hi,

Well, Howard, footnotes do precisely what you say they don't do. They ensure accuracy of the details I cite because I am giving you the opportunity to retrace my steps and see the original source of what I am saying, not just take my word for it. So even if you disagree with my thesis of who Zodiac was, you can rest assured that my case is built on facts for better or worse.

I did not want my book to resemble in any way the debacle that was "The Most Dangerous Animal of All," the main (handwriting) evidence of which I was able to disprove in about a week. In contrast, I provide proven facts that I use to come to a conclusion, which is the definition of deductive reasoning.

Books like Lyndon Lafferty's "The Silenced Badge" were criticized for not having any references and now you are finding a way to criticize me for providing you with them. So it's sort of like a guy can't win. But I already knew that from years of involvement with the case.

Honestly, I really did not write my book for people like you and Ray, since you know before you would even read it that I am wrong about my suspect, so why bother? My book was really written for people who don't already know who Zodiac was...or rather, who Zodiac WASN'T.

Mike

Connolly

2/18/2018 10:20:08 am

Mike Rodelli

Nice work man! He proclaimed "a citizen" in one letter. Was that an allusion to getting his citizenship? I'm thinking he may have been proud of that? PS - Don't sweat those who go negative!

Ray Jenkins

2/18/2018 12:59:08 pm

You lost me at the last paragraph. That says it all for me. I am going to give it a miss and save my money. The last thing I want is a bookcase lined with "flavor of the month" Zodiac suspects, like a CD collection of Greatest Hits albums featuring odes to "one hit wonders". I do not have a single Zodiac book on my shelves and I intend to keep it that way. Good luck selling it to those so inclined!

Howard Miller

2/18/2018 01:21:12 pm

Ditto from me. But all the best in your endeavors. I only hope you found a publisher for this book and did not self-publish??? It is sad that some people spend an absolute fortune writing books about the Zodiac. Really, should this man command and deserve all the attention? One thing I dislike about pet suspects is a family's name and reputation can be sullied with much suspicion. Too bad if the pet suspect is later revealed to be entirely innocent. I have yet to read books that provide retractions as to why someone was not the Zodiac. We only seem to read books presenting reasons why someone must be a suspect. One can only hope too that such books provide some closure to the victims and their families and not merely serve to confuse and frustrate them if they are to read it. The survivors of serial criminals are so often forgotten in the race to identify the culprit. Popular culture and modern consumerism does tend to demand this, rather than catering sensitively to the needs of surviving victims and victim's families. These are the main reasons why I steer well clear of "suspect presentations", plus the obvious potential for creating impartiality. You write a book, you then have to sell it, and that tends to turn authors into salesmen... and then comes the inevitable sales pitch, which yours truly will never buy. All the best.

Judith Chapman

2/18/2018 09:12:24 am

I understand Mike. Writing a book is a difficult task in and of itself.
Wishing to get your story told, and listened to, and believed in, is an emotional thing. We are among a group of many, sometimes who I think are crazy sounding, and then feel that I must sound like them. My belief is that DNA will end up solving the crimes. We are looking to you, Law Enforcement...

Howard Miller

2/18/2018 01:03:31 pm

Sadly, when it comes to the Zodiac case, L.E. are about as partial and contaminated as the DNA. :-)

Mike Rodelli

2/18/2018 05:06:16 pm

Hi,

Well, the reality is that publishers demand that you sell your own book nowadays. It's a tough business. However, I do not know how that detracts from my thesis. But again, I am not going to try to convince a hardened skepotic to read it.

My job was to produce a book that, unlike other books on the case, contributes important eyewitness testimony from such people as Lindsey Robbins and Don Fouke, some some interesting facts from retired SFPD Insp, Vince Repetto, as well as a logical and cogent discussion as to why my suspect was Zodiac. And that is what I did. As to whether or not people choose to read it, that is out of my hands.

Mike

Ray Jenkins

2/18/2018 08:19:18 pm

Yes I agree entirely and wish you all the best.

Rubislaw 32 link

2/19/2018 06:25:51 am

Good luck with your book,Mike Rodelli.

Both you and Judith become part of the ''accomplished'',in the annals of Zodiac history.

Though I have yet to be convinced that Mr.X was anything but an innocent bystander,I will look forward to reading ''The Hunt for Zodiac''.

As with Judith's book,there is always something extra,contributed to the case,by such an undertaking.

And,no mean feat,in itself.

Richard

2/19/2018 08:17:06 am

What about the proposition when looking at suspects, that we go out of our way to try to rule out a suspect, and if we simply cannot find anything or hardly anything to rule out the suspect as Zodiac, then the case against the suspect by default becomes stronger. Take Ross Sullivan as case in point. The first thing that rules against him, is nobody can place him within 100 miles of Vallejo. Without being able to place him anywhere near the crime scenes, the Presidio Heights sketch comparison and the fact he read a cryptography book is pretty meaningless. Your first priority to ascertain in any murder investigation is alibi- did the person of interest have the opportunity to kill. If you cannot place that suspect within 100 miles, then you haven't much of a case. If I asked Mike anything, I would ask the biggest five red flags that pointed away from Kjell Qvale.

Ray Jenkins

2/19/2018 03:45:33 pm

Richard, I would say: Sullivan far too fat and too mentally-incapacitated to be the Zodiac; Qvale far too old and too socially active and busy (he would almost certainly have alibis for many of the days on which Zodiac killed). But without the benefit of a TARDIS, those alibis may be difficult to uncover now, except by chance, which is perhaps convenient for those making the allegations(?). Time creates enormous gaps. Moreover, time creates convenience and advantage for those who promote pet suspects. I mean, someone has even written a book claiming Dennis Rader was somehow the Zodiac, even though he was half way around the world at the time of the killings. lol! At least Qvale and Sullivan did live in the area. Can I imagine Sullivan staging the crime at Lake Berryessa, staggered and swayed down that long hill like a blob of profusely sweating blubber, got to the lake in the middle of nowhere on a hot day, then confronted, tied up and stabbed two people, then staggered back up the hill again. Definitely not. The whole idea is preposterous. Likewise, why Qvale would leave the comfort of his sports car and do the same also baffles the imagination. He would have preferred to get his kicks on the race circuit, surely, one would think? Perhaps the sketch of the culprit from the Stine murder does vaguely resemble Qvale, and to some extent seems closer to his age, but once again, why would Qvale want to kill a taxi driver in cold blood? If the answer is "because unknown to everyone, he was actually a crazed serial killer", I just don't buy that for a second.

Rubislaw 32 link

2/19/2018 09:28:19 am

These are interesting ''lemmas'',Richard.

I hope that you get some more feedback,than just mine.

My feelings are that Zodiac was very much a ''Have car,will travel'' sort of person....like Barry Newman,in ''Vanishing Point''.

So,his ability to appear to have been in two places,at one time,is more persuading,than we might think.

I suspect that a fair proportion of those that give Ross Sullivan the ''once over'' are more inclined to see him as the murderer of Cheri Jo Bates....than,actually Zodiac,himself.

And....that Kjell Qvale is really only considered to be Zodiac,by virtue of possibly being the perpetrator of Paul Stine.Then,by process of logic,in that L.E. believe Stine to be the victim of Zodiac,Qvale ''is'' Zodiac.

The floor is open...

Mike Rodelli

2/19/2018 12:20:21 pm

Hi Rbuislaw,

Funny you should mention "Have car, will travel." My suspect was intimately related to sports cars and as far back as 1948 there is an article from the Chronicle that shows him driving the back roads of the Bay Area.

Mike

Rubislaw 32 link

2/19/2018 02:35:57 pm

Hi Mike....and thanks for your reply.

Yes,I have shared correspondences with some people,including Lyndon Lafferty,about the ''fraternity'' that frequented the back roads of particular provincial areas of S.F's vicinity,''back in the day''.

Most of them were grown up ''boy racers'',showing off their latest car,and maybe congregating in car parks for a bit of banter,arm wrestling,and the like.

But,there were also a few loners,that would seek thrills,by intimidating regular motorists,seeking short cuts,through the countryside.

Clearly,Qvale was ''mad keen'' on cars,from both a recreation,and business point of view [?].

Where I regularly post,we recently received posts from a friend of Qvale's pilot,and the daughter of Qvale's project manager.

It has to be said that they were both ''glowing'' in admiration of Qvale.Happy,grateful,generous...pretty well,all good reports about him.

It would seem that he would have so much to lose,by being exposed as an extortionist and murderer [?].

But,I will look forward to what you have to say,and reveal....and keep an open mind.

Thanks

Ray Jenkins

2/19/2018 02:49:59 pm

Yes indeed, the fact that many serial killers turn out to be the happy, generous, baby-faced good friend and neighbour is clearly filled the popular imagination, and lends itself well to the belief that the Zodiac could have been such a person. No priors, clean as a whistle, non-violent, outgoing and the friend of all who knew him. But whether this really hits the mark dead on is another matter. For all we know, the Zodiac may have been a bitter and angry loner, living off the grid, skulking away in his basement, and generally avoiding society apart perhaps from occasionally seeing a few close friends. In reality, his personality could go either way... or, for that matter, he could have been somewhere in between these two poles. Nobody can know for sure without having known him personally. And people can fantasize and exaggerate in their writing, so we cannot extrapolate too much from his crazy writings either.

Ray Jenkins

2/19/2018 02:55:03 pm

Another thing to consider. Cars tend to be raced on weekends. The Zodiac tended to drive about looking for victims and killing on weekends. A car enthusiast would be generally busy pursuing his hobby on a weekend and socializing with other car enthusiasts. So I cannot help but wonder, did Qvale have alibis for the days and times on which the Zodiac killed? Clearly he could not be in two places at the same time. Pity that so much time has passed. All it would take is one such alibi and that would destroy the entire case against Qvale.

Ray Jenkins

2/19/2018 03:09:21 pm

It was a popular pastime for many, especially on weekends. He just happened to get his photo taken doing it. :-)

Ray Jenkins

2/19/2018 02:37:34 pm

If only Bryan Hartnell could have extrapolated on that strange accent that he heard. If he had said "definitely like a slow Norwegian/Scandinavian", the case would now be so much stronger. The majority of the suspects could be ruled out almost immediately.

Instead we have all been left guessing with regards to that "accent". I'm not sure about anybody else, but I find this obscurity in testimony to be rather unusual.

Mike Rodelli

2/19/2018 06:04:16 pm

Hi,

First of all, Connolly, thanks for the kind words. I missed that post earlier!

I don't want to give away all the research I did for my book here but I do address the fact that Qvale had different personalities. There was the outgoing, affable one that the public would see but there was also another one that few got to see. It was not a violent personality, mind you, but he did exemplify one of the key traits that is often cited as describing Z.

One person, as I recall, who listened to KQ in the Bank of the West commercial that is on YouTube said that they detected a Norwegian accent. I would say that if anything, it is a subtle accent and it is not something I would have noticed. If anything it may be the remnants of a Norwegian accent.

I've always felt that the people who would have the toughest time believing that KQ is Z are the people who dealt with him in business and social settings. I can only say that they should read my book with an open mind and look at the behavioral and circumstantial evidence before making a decision.

One of the key questions is why this man could not look me in the eye and tell me the truth in 2006. See Chapters 18 and 19.

Mike

Ray Jenkins

2/19/2018 06:21:28 pm

The problem for me is you could find probably a million, make that 2-3 million or more people out there in the Bay area at the time who would fit that personality "type" well enough to be generally pigeon-holed as "Zodiac-like". Wife beaters, as an extreme example, would have been all too common. These men may have seemed friendly and helpful to outsiders, very amicable to strangers, likeable to friends, then they would go home and abuse their wives and children. Many of them would have had accents too. So what makes Qvale so special? Forgive me, I never buy into these "Well you will just have to buy my book to find out because I am not giving away too much here" arguments. lol!

Do you present any concrete evidence in the book that is not circumstantial? I mean, "smoking gun" kind of evidence? Evidence that cannot be denied and will make everybody sit up and take notice? If it is all about how he wrote his "W"s and his accent and comparisons between ancient Norwegian symbols and the Zodiac's symbols, and the fact that he was photographed driving about the countryside on his own, I would call such things highly circumstantial (at best).

Mike Rodelli

2/19/2018 06:39:45 pm

Hi Ray,

Well, everyone would love to have a smoking gun, wouldn't they? But sometimes all you have to work with is circumstantial evidence. At least mine is voluminous and documented and not just me saying, "Take my word for it, he was Zodiac."

I am a civilian and as such I am limited in what I can do. I think I did pretty well for myself by getting to interview Qvale and having him make denials that I could prove were untrue. That is certainly more than the police did.

I would have liked to see you do better.

Sorry I can't offer you more.

Mike

Ray Jenkins

2/19/2018 08:11:24 pm

I have no doubt you did a very thorough and detailed analysis.

Given the huge amount of time that has passed, people will make all sorts of denials and, in truth they will forget, or they may even exaggerate, or they may become tight-lipped if you touch on a sensitive part of their life that they consider personal. Or they may feel you are trying to create innuendo by way of the interview process and so become prickly in response. This can make them behave in ways that gives the impression of guilty, but the reasons for their behavior can be numerous. He may, fr example, have just disliked the fact that someone was forcing him to remember things he either could no longer remember properly, or he just wished you would mind your own business, or he thought you were leading him towards saying things that he did not intend to say. Or maybe he was just becoming impatient and wondering where you were heading with your line of questions and just wishing you would stop. I see this happen all the time with people being interviewed. There is a proper technique to asking questions. The correct method is employed by professionals, such as police detectives and psychiatrists. Sadly, very few reporters or members of the public know how to ask questions properly, and this can easily antagonize the person being interviewed. An antagonized person can then give the impression of sounding guarded or evasive, as if they have something to hide, when actually they are just fed up.

Judith N Chapman

2/19/2018 10:37:59 pm

You are aware that law enforcement has a suspect Matrix for the Zodiac Killer. I wonder how many of these classic suspects on the websites we see, are actually in the law enforcement Matrix. Or were eliminated long ago.

Rubislaw 32 link

2/20/2018 09:46:38 am

Are you able to elaborate any more,on this ''Matrix'' suspect,Judith ?

The two largest sites do appear to be ''suspect driven'' and ''suspect led'',for much of the time.Though,not necessarily a criticism,either way.

I find it is more productive,to try to focus on ''unidentified Zodiac''.To try to establish the sort of person,who might be ''behind the mask''.

But,any titbits of information are a help.....even if swaying towards gossip [?].

Judith N Chapman

2/22/2018 08:26:12 pm

I have had Direct contact from various law enforcement agencies throughout California regarding my suspect Peter S PIante. I was informed there is a suspect Matrix for the Zodiac Killer and that Peter is in that Matrix.

Rubislaw 32 link

2/23/2018 03:08:57 pm

Thank you,Judith.

''Matrix'',as in group that may be related.

Good to hear that there is ''activity'',of any sort [?].

mike white

2/20/2018 10:16:51 am

hi Mike
can we get a hard copy of this book. I don't have a kindle but certainly would like to purchase it. thx

Mike Rodelli

2/21/2018 06:35:08 am

Hi Mike,

Thanks for your interest. Currently it is only an Ebook. Sorry. However, you do not need to have a Kindle to read it. Go to my Amazon page and look at "Read On Any Device" below the image of my book.

Mike

mike white

2/21/2018 07:59:05 am

Purchased. thanks.

Mike Rodelli

2/21/2018 06:32:19 pm

Hi Mike,

Great. Let me know what you think when you've read it.

Mike

KayElleSF

2/23/2018 02:02:51 pm

Hi Mike,

Planning to buy your book in the near future. I read some of the passages on Amazon and I found it well written and very compelling.

I always felt (before I considered Mr. X) that whoever Zodiac is/was, he was obsessed with cars. I though maybe he was a mechanic or something along those lines but KQ fits that bill perfectly.

It also seems reasonable that Z could have been someone who existed in the upper echelons of SF society with his fixation on high profile people such as Melvin Belli and his interest in the Mikado (not really an average Joe sort of thing).

Then there are Zs famous misspellings. Someone who adopted English as a second language might be inclined to spell works phonetically as Zodiac did.

But the most striking aspect of the whole thing is the W/C location of the Stine murder. Why there? As you point out, most people in SF wouldn't necessarily be familiar with that specific area..yet KQ lived 2 blocks away. It's all very interesting.

Anyway, thanks for your hard work on the book and I'm looking forward to reading it in it's entirety very soon.

Ray Jenkins

2/23/2018 03:52:03 pm

Blaine lived just around the corner from where Paul Stine was murdered. He was an artist and writer familiar with the classics and he loved to dabble in ancient symbolism and mysticism. He paints an interesting portrait as an individual, and made himself even more interesting in later times after he claimed that his friend Richard Gaikowski was the Zodiac.

What I am getting at here is that anyone could find somebody who lived close by to one of the murder scenes and stitch together a convincing story based on highly circumstantial bits and pieces from their life and times, entirely in the absence of potential alibis, erased conveniently by a huge passing of time and lapses in memory, also lapses in judgement, and the reflection of various biases, and then claim this person might have been the Zodiac. The gaps in the logic are something like this: "1+1+1+1+1+1 amounts to 50,000,000."

Blaine was not the Zodiac of course, and I also doubt very much that Gaikowski had anything to do with the Zodiac murders, except in Blaine's fertile imagination.

We can but imagine the possibilities as a result of such highly circumstantial presentations. Fact blurs with fiction and that helps to complete "the splendid illusion".

I am sure with enough weaving, someone could even put together an interesting and elaborate story (farce?) that insinuates Steve McQueen was the Zodiac, simply because he liked racing cars and his ancestry was such-and-such and there is a rumor that he once performed in The Mikado at school, and had another side to his personality etc. etc. But of course Steve is no longer around to provide the essential alibis to his alleged crimes. Then of course all those who knew Steve personally would rightly say the allegations are untrue and preposterous.

Luke A

5/22/2019 04:22:29 pm

Wait. Steve McQueen was the Zodiac?

Mike Rodelli

2/23/2018 04:38:28 pm

Hi KayElle,

I see you understand circumstantial evidence much better than some. Let me know what you think after you have read my book!

Mike

KayElleSF

2/23/2018 08:28:17 pm

Will do, Mike.

Howard Miller

2/23/2018 05:20:47 pm

Circumstantial evidence can only ever be understood (or "misunderstood") as circumstantial evidence. How can it be anything more or less? Circumstantial evidence can be convincing or dubious, and much of the plausibility becomes subjective (i.e. reflected in the experience and biases of the individuals who brought together the evidence and those who later view the evidence). To claim that circumstantial evidence is only "understood" if the individual agrees with the person who has presented it is really rather disingenuous, and also a tad facetious and naive. "Understanding" is one thing. "Agreeing" (as if there is some kind of consensus required in order to validate the evidence) is something totally different again. It is of course possible to understand something and then still not agree with it, or reach any conclusion at all for that matter.

Mike Rodelli

2/24/2018 06:40:39 pm

I address what constitutes a strong circumstantial case in my book and make an argument as to why I feel that the case I make is a strong one.

Howard Miller

2/24/2018 07:55:27 pm

In that case your goals are very realistic.

Tom M

2/25/2018 06:20:08 am

Would Mr X incriminate himself by mailing in pieces of Stine’s shirt?
What am I missing here.

Mike Rodelli

3/8/2018 10:54:13 am

Hi,

Anyone finished my book yet? ;)

Mike

Mike Rodelli

3/23/2018 06:07:40 am

Hi,

This book is getting nine five-star reviews on Amazon. out of nine (no, none are from me). Surely somebody has read it...no?

Mike

Alex Lewis

4/19/2018 04:19:56 pm

Hey Mike, its been a while! Congrats on the release of a book.

I am curious to know if, before i purchase your book, do you acknowledge in your book that Qvale eas approached bu ABC's documentary film makers who put the allegation to Him and upon His denial to the allegation put, did agree when asked, supplied His DNA for comparison which was tested against a sealed stamp from a Z envelope that had DNA and saliva found under it with a negative, no match, result?

I don't ask this Mike to try to discredit or take away from the books suspect and your conclusions, I am simply asking because if you do approach this point in your book, then I would congratulate you on giving potential readers the full and 'unedited', as it were, account of the Qvale saga even to the point of addressing issues that may not favor your agenda opposed to simply not addressing facts that are non favorable to your thesis whereby the books credibility and bias can be called to question?

Mike Rodelli

4/4/2018 08:33:31 pm

Hi,

Happened to notice some comments about KQ's appearance. Hartnell could not see Z because he had a mask on but KQ was consistently described as looking much younger than his age. When looking at a person it is not chronological age that matters but how old you LOOK. In fact, just last week someone told me I look late 30's. I'm twice that. So the age argument is meaningless for KQ.

As for accent, as of 1969, Qvale had been in this country for 40 years. I think that is enough time to Americanize your accent to a greater degree. When I went to school in LA in the 1980s people told me that I didn't sound anything like a New Yorker after having lived there for my first 13 years and the next 14 in various other places, mostly New Jersey. So again, just because you come from somewhere does not mean that you retain a strong accent from that area forever.

I hope the people here who read my book enjoyed it. Nobody has posted anything in a while.

Mike

4/6/2018 10:29:47 am

Exactly! I like your take on age. Descriptions should say looks 30 to 40 or whatever. And, this should be strongly underlined. Ive seen 18 year olds look 48, and vise-versa. Especially at night time.
PS. For you to see here where everybody hangs out - click Home - then go to ZODIAC CIPHERS LATEST NEWS ARTICLES . The top is the latest article and has the most visitors - I look forwards to seeing you there.
--- blue belly ---

Mike Rodelli

4/20/2018 06:40:09 pm

Up to 12 five-star comments out of 12 total reviews on Amazon. Nobody interested? The crickets everywhere are deafening...

Carl Karas link

4/24/2018 07:42:57 am

Hi Mike Rodelli, I've read the Amazon reviews and will definitely be picking up your book. You might be interested in my website/blog Zodiac fon Kane on Wordpress. It's based around a 340 solution. Cheers and thank you Richard for calling attention to the book

Luke

6/3/2018 02:23:32 pm

I thought the Zodiac was one of the Osmond brothers.

Howard Miller

6/3/2018 05:23:19 pm

At first this seems a silly comment, but actually it is a gem. When you think about it in terms of sheer probability, an Osmond brother is perhaps no better or worse a suspect than Qvale. It makes about as much sense too. On the grounds of probability, one could even claim that Donald Trump, Richard Nixon, or John Denver had about as much chance of being the Zodiac as Qvale. John Denver flew planes and he allegedly attended some of the same classes at the Esalen Institute as Charles Manson. Also he wore glasses. When we look at probability, what makes Qvale so special?

if we look at the foundation of this theory, Qvale kills Stine for no reason. But of course he is secretly a serial killer so needs no reason. He walks away from the cab but is seen by a cop who doesn’t even realize he should be looking for a white guy who looks like him, because a police miscommunication meant that he was actually looking for a black guy. In any case Qvale runs, or in fact walks quickly with a "shuffling lope", perhaps due to the physical exertion of just having killed a guy, and nervous anxiety due to being spotted by a cop. He makes it the couple of blocks to his home. Then he inexplicably changes his bloody clothes, grabs the dog, and heads back outside.

Why Qvale didn't just stay inside (considering he’d just killed a man out on the street and had been spotted by a cop) isn’t exactly clear. Maybe his dog had been shut inside for hours while his master was out stalking and killing people? So the poor dog really needed to take a dump badly!!

Oh I know, he was trying to create an alibi for himself. Now that's what I call animal abuse - using your poor dog in such a way to cover up for a murder! Or he was just being a voyeur because he got off on seeing all the cop cars racing about while he was out walking his dog, as if minding his own business.

So yeah, if it came to placing bets, I think there is greater odds of an Osmond brother or John Denver being the Zodiac than Qvale. Right place right time, or wrong place wrong time? The answer is always unclear. Being in the neighborhood does not make him a killer. Lots of other people lived nearby to Stine's murder too and I can guarantee that a lot of them looked exactly like that sketch. Some may even have owned dogs.

Mike Rodelli

6/3/2018 06:42:21 pm

Hi Howard,
The one luxury that being a researcher on this case for nearly twenty years has earned me is that I do not have to get down in the mud and wrestle with people like you. And for all I know Howard Miller is a pseudonym.

If you think that KQ was Z because he lived near the Stine scene and looked like the sketch, then I know everything I need to know about you. It is kind of funny that people who have not read my book insist that I am wrong. But after they read it they can't see how I am not right.

Peace to you.

Mike

Howard Miller

6/3/2018 07:28:05 pm

Speed of retaliation in defense is often a measure of just how confident an author actually feels about their work. If an author is completely confident, well the premise of the work should be undeniable. He should not need to defend it by giving us word-of-mouth statistics relating to "positive" feedback.

So I guess this means I have to prove you wrong by buying your book? Right? Seeing so many people have bought and read your book and they think you are right, well that is proof enough that you must be right? Right? Or so it seems.

Oh and of course I am just a "pseudo" so my opinions don't count. Whether someone uses pseudos or not on a PUBLIC forum is really besides the point, because a question is a question is a question, no matter who asks it. It is also their own business why they have chosen to use a pseudo, otherwise some crazy person might take offense and try to track down the identity of the poster.

I recall various commenters have asked exactly what "smoking gun" proof you do have in order to make us want to buy your book, but you have always failed to supply anything that really pricks my interest. It all seems like a bunch of highly selected and cherry picked "what ifs" and innuendo thrown together in order to make a convincing case in the absence of other explanations. And yet you want us to buy your book? Rather disingenuous some might say. Kind of like a marketing ploy where you only get the solution to a cipher by forking out the money first.

If you could have outlined the REAL evidence that you have, maybe people like myself would change their mind. For now it seems you have nothing but a book and a marketing strategy. At present it seems your estimation of how right you are is apparently based on how many sales you make and how many positive comments those people make.

Luke

6/3/2018 07:03:38 pm

LOL! Just to clarify. I was being silly. I didn't mean to spark off a hate fest. I wasn't making a comment about your theory.

Thanks for all the effort researching and writing your book.

Mike Rodelli

6/4/2018 04:00:24 pm

Hi Luke,

There are haters and ignorant people all over. It's not your fault for waking one up. Thanks for the kind words.

Mike

Howard Miller

6/4/2018 05:20:19 pm

Funny how when someone is actually being sincere, genuine and honest, just because the comment is a negative one, this automatically means they must be "ignorant haters". :-/

I see this all the time with pet suspects and cipher solutions. "You don't agree with my cipher solution?! How come? It took me thirty-five years to solve it, so it must be right. Other people think I am right! I MUST be right! And if you don't agree than you must be a troll, or an ignorant person, or a hater!"

Sorry, but I have heard it all before. Too many times before in fact.

This is funny in so many ways. You write about a very popular yet highly controversial subject, your suspect was, for the most part, a very well respected man for many people. You and you alone were the one who chose to write the book and put it out there for others to read. Can you really expect everyone to appraise it and agree with it?

Fact is you will have both positive and negative feedback. If you do not like negative feedback and only want to read positive comments, this is your choice. One would think that any author who ignores negative comments does so at their own peril. This advice comes from the position of a former PhD student who learnt the hard way that you have to submit a thesis and revise it many, many, many times to the point that the final version is nothing at all like the original version before it will finally be accepted by a large number of peers.

One of the problems with self-publishing is that there are often very few professional peers, and sometimes none. Sometimes the author prefers in fact to be peerless, which is generally not advantageous and to their peril. Still you chose to do this. You can attack all those who make a negative comment, or you can ignore them, or you can learn from them. Again, it is your choice.

10/18/2018 06:35:02 pm

Mike Rodelli

Here is where everybody hangs out - click Home - then go to ZODIAC CIPHERS LATEST NEWS ARTICLES . The top is the latest article. We need you to chime in.

Sigmund

6/4/2018 04:59:25 pm

I am not sure if reviews are permitted here, albeit honest ones?

Unlike Howard, I have indeed read the book! However, as a person who is well attuned to the demands of the correct way to pursue critical analysis, I must say I came away from the book feeling less than convinced that Qvale had anything to do with the Zodiac case.

If there was clear and indisputable evidence in the book, I am afraid I did not see it.

I did however see the same degree of selectivity of circumstantial coincidences - as well as conclusions drawn mostly from speculating about the circumstantial evidence - that you see when most people present theories that endeavor to shine a spotlight on an individual suspect. The number of years spent on research really does not count. It is the way the research is presented, that is what is important.

There are a number of purely academic flaws in the way this thesis is presented. The speculative "information" is included only after lots of well-sourced and acknowledged facts about the case have been presented. This unfortunately tends to create the impression that the degree of sourced factoids must somehow provide the validity - or "backbone" - for all of the circumstantial evidence that the author has then attempted to string together.

This rather a-priori manner of reasoning jarred with me consistently throughout the book. The facts can of course be verified entirely in the absence of the circumstantial offerings that the author presents, but can the circumstantial evidence on its own be similarly validated? Sadly this was not to be the case.

I feel we must also view the circumstantial evidence on its own, because when viewed on its own, the circumstantial evidence becomes just that. It is circumstantial evidence that might or might not relate directly to the original sourced facts. By the end of the book I was still asking the same questions about Qvale.

Instead of the author presenting the circumstantial evidence in a way that provides the much needed backbone to support the facts, always I got the impression that the facts were being related to the various circumstantial offerings. This is the book's greatest flaw and weakness. It perhaps reflects a weakness in the entire case against Qvale, that being there simply is not enough evidence to support the allegation.

The book is well written and to some extent entertaining, but I found myself asking too many questions as the pages turned. These questions multiplied in my mind to create a huge amount of doubt by the time I had reached the end. I was always writing in the margins: "But what is a possible alternative explanation for this?" Or "Why did the author jump immediately to that conclusion without thoroughly investigating other possibilities?" etc. etc. etc.

Would this thesis stand up to scrutiny in a court of law? No.

Was Qvale the Zodiac based on the facts and the circumstantial evidence? Who would know without further speculation?

Is the book interesting and entertaining? Yes.

Is the book well researched with a sound analysis of the facts? Well the facts yes. But the circumstantial evidence is rather too ambiguous, uncertain, unclear, subjective and intuitive to support itself. Basically there is no backbone to the thesis, apart from the facts, which may or may not even relate to the circumstantial evidence. I came away from this book feeling just a bit deflated, but I also felt entertained, so the experience was also a positive one in that regard.

Mike Rodelli

5/13/2019 07:26:46 am

Hi,

I find is funny that I have to see someone write that when I say in my book that someone looked and spoke like Z, lived 2.5 blocks from the Stine murder scene, sought widespread public attention in the 1940s like Z would later do and even wrote on Monarch sized paper, all things that seem very incriminating to other people, that my evidence is "ambiguous, uncertain, unclear, subjective and intuitive."

Few people can provide more specific circumstantial evidence than I do. I don't have the "smoking gun." But my circumstantial case is a close to one as I've ever seen.

Mike

Sigmund

5/13/2019 04:00:29 pm

Mike, I guess the problem is we have all seen numerous suspects being put forward with piles of circumstantial evidence attached.

I must have put several possible suspects under the microscope myself and managed to compile almost 100 pages of circumstantial evidence on any one of them. What seems to amount to a lot of "compelling and overwhelming evidence" to me may in fact be just a house of cards without the all essential DNA, multiple witnesses, and fingerprint evidence to back it up. From my experience huge piles of circumstantial evidence can in fact become illusory - they lead us to believe things about a suspect that may really have no foundation - so all that effort ends up amounting to nothing. Piles of circumstantial evidence can become more like products of our own mind's reasoning (based on premises) than what may have actually been the case. This is why the Zodiac's identity will always be in doubt, at least until such time as DNA can prove otherwise, and we all see how slow that process has been. There may never be any closure on the Zodiac's DNA.

My guess is if anyone had door-knocked and did a survey of San Francisco back then, they could have come up with 100 or more suspects from the nearby area based on similar kinds of circumstantial evidence. He looked like the sketch (check), wrote on a certain style of paper (check), did things that suggested he was of "incriminating" character (check), sought attention (check, because San Francisco was packed full of people chasing the ideal of individual freedom at that time, so it had numerous artists, poets, writers, singers, songwriters, and even the odd millionaire with a sports car fetish).

So really, you cannot blame people for thinking your circumstantial evidence is "ambiguous, uncertain, unclear, subjective and intuitive", as you put it, because in reality it is. By your own words, it is "circumstantial", so I am not quite sure what you expect from other people?

The thing is you could be right, then again you could be completely wrong. This will be the case no matter how much you try to argue in support of your circumstantial evidence. Other people will always find cause to reason, question, and doubt if a theory is based solely on circumstantial evidence. That is just human nature. Add to this the fact that the crime took place a great many decades ago, and it should not be difficult to see the problems. Time is a great eraser and corrupter of evidence, and the longer the time the more subjective a case will inevitably become.

Car’l Krash link

5/14/2019 03:45:36 am

So to the point, and so beautifully written, Sigmund. I wonder if I can quote the entire passage in a blog post on my site ZodiacKMAK.com? It would be about Z book reviews and my inability to write any more of them. It would be supportive and would contain mostly just what you’ve written here

Richard

5/14/2019 07:44:13 am

Quote whatever you want Carl, it's a free world.

Sigmund

5/14/2019 04:34:03 pm

Car'l Krash, as Richard said. Thanks.

The problem becomes not so much like the evolutionist arguing with a devout "young earth" creationist, it becomes more like one of an evolutionist adamant he has discovered a brand new species of hominid on the basis of a few fossil footprints and wondering why other professional and amateur evolutionists are saying they doubt him until much more substantial evidence can be found. As with such things as abominable snowmen, there will always be evidence in the form of grainy, out of focus photos and footprints left in the snow, but until such time as Mr. Yeti reveals himself to the entire world, it becomes an exercise in pure speculation based on circumstantial evidence. Of course if Mr. Yeti is ever captured, then the believers can all come together and gloat and say "We told you so!" But most people were born with an ability to reason, question and doubt, and as such, most will refuse to believe in anything without overwhelming evidence. In the case against Qvale the evidence is anything but overwhelming - in fact subjective and speculative - and entirely circumstantial. Sadly a lot of people in this world just seem more inclined to draw the long bow. This is not intended as an attack against anyone. It is just stating a simple fact.

Richard

5/15/2019 03:44:15 am

Circumstantial evidence (if enough) can be just as powerful as forensic evidence in solving cases - the differences between people involved in the Zodiac case is what value we attribute to each piece of circumstantial evidence. If we are talking about Kjell Qvale, I know Mike places emphasis on Kjell Qvale's lifelong involvement in cars and links that to cars/motorcycles/buses/firetrucks, etc, that figure prominently in the Z crimes. From my perspective, I interpret the mention of cars/motorcycles/buses/firetrucks nothing more than Zodiac referring to his experience that night, and can see no correlation between Zodiac and cars, other than subterfuge in the August 4th 1969 letter. Mike and I disagree on the BRS phone call, which I maintain was directionally correct. I believe Zodiac was stopped by Fouke etc. I have read Mike's book twice and the information about the crimes is extremely informative, but I clearly don't see the circumstantial correlations as compelling as Mike does, and never the twain shall meet. I only hope that differences of opinion are not treated as attacks. I actually don't buy into any of the suspects, including Arthur Leigh Allen. The question that has to be asked to people who have a strongly held belief that a certain suspect is Zodiac, is what circumstantial evidence would it take for them to doubt their suspect. There is unlikely to be any.

Mike has a strongly held view that Kjell Qvale was the Zodiac Killer and I respect his opinion, but one that I personally don't share. We can agree to disagree and accept that is the nature of a Zodiac community I would like to see. If we all agreed on the same thing, what a boring world it would be.

I would like to ask Mike about his forum post on the Zodiac Killer message board with respect to Michael Butterfield "His agenda is to make himself relevant as an expert on the case even though he doesn't have the insight or wherewithal to develop his own suspect. So he compensates by saying that you can't trust anything a person with a suspect says because they"have an agenda." He's a guy who pulls the wool over the eyes of unsuspecting people from the media."

This reads to me as though anybody who hasn't got or developed their own suspect hasn't got any insight or wherewithal. That is like saying "you need to develop a suspect otherwise your credibility as a 'Zodiac expert' is compromised". I don't agree. What I will say in general about the Zodiac case, is that you learn and develop as a 'Zodiac expert' by being prepared to read forum posts, website articles and listening to various podcasts from multiple sources. I recently listened to a Michael Butterfield podcast, where he stated in response to, have there been any new findings of interest in the Zodiac case in recent years, he cited the excellent find by Tahoe and the Alfred Hitchcock gunsight feature - and that was it. The only way to learn about the Zodiac case, is be prepared to wade through an exorbitant amount of shit, until you learn something new and interesting. I am prepared to do that to discover or see new angles, but unfortunately are renowned 'Zodiac experts' prepared to do that. Or are they content with either listening to their own voices and only reading articles and forum posts about themselves. In respect to your book Mike, I have read it and therefore I am not one of the disingenuous voices that comments on it without reading it. You make it plain that it is important to read something before making comment regarding the validity of Kjell Qvale as Zodiac. I agree, but unfortunately not everybody will arrive at the same conclusion.

Do I believe people with suspects (whether in book form or not) have implicit bias - absolutely. They see the Zodiac crimes through the lens of their suspect now and when presented with future findings, as Mark Hewitt so exhibited when deleting old videos contradicting his current stance on the validity of the blooded taxicab fingerprints, once his third book on Kaczynski came out. Suddenly his stance on the fingerprints did a 180. He knew Kaczynski's fingerprints were on file, so effectively had to negate the fingerprint evidence in his mind. Whether the fingerprints are Zodiac or not, is irrelevant. It is the dramatic shift he took regarding this evidence once he aligned with Ted Kaczynski. This shift was suspect driven. I respect Mark Hewitt, Gary Stewart and anybody else who is utterly convinced of a particular suspect and have long realized that no argument (however compelling) will ever jolt this unwavering belief. The harsh reality, is no amount of circumstantial evidence debunking a suspect will ever trump the circumstantial evidence the person uses in favour of their suspect, because people have strong beliefs. You strongly believe in Kjell Qvale and no amount of people supporting your book findings or negating them will change anything. What you believe is what matters.

Mike Rodelli

5/14/2019 05:36:01 am

Hi Sig,

I think it would help me if you tell me the perspective from which you are saying all of this. I have one of the top gun profilers in the world saying that my circumstantial case is enough to convince him (and he is a very tough critic), along with the profile, that KQ was the right guy. Why should your opinion trump his? If you are an amateur, it does not. But if you are some world renowned expert on circumstantial evidence and its use in solving cold cases, I'll have to give your opinions more consideration. So what are your credentials?

You are the one who said my evidence was "ambiguous, uncertain, etc.," lol. Don't you even know how you are characterizing my research? I quoted you from a previous post lol. I don't know how you can even say that, frankly, when my evidence shows that KQ was very much like Z in looks, voice and behavior. And I go specific point by specific point. Why are you not just flat out wrong about that? Forgetting DNA and fingerprints, because nobody has that kind of evidence, how can someone say that the parallels between KQ and Z are not strong? You need to justify your reasoning, not vice versa. I've made mine very clear.

Mike

Mike Rodelli

5/14/2019 05:55:07 am

Hi,

Just to clarify and drive home my points:

There is nothing "ambiguous" about both Qvale and Z writing on Monarch sized paper. It's a clear fact. Not disputable or unclear. Sure, lots of people use that paper and blah, blah, blah, However, the important fact is that no other Zodiac suspect used it to my knowledge.

There is nothing ambiguous about the fact that KQ was Norwegian and had strong ties to England. Those are two countries that appear to have influenced Z.

There is nothing ambiguous about the fact that cars/motorcycles/buses/firetrucks, etc., figure prominently in the Z crimes and letters and that KQ's life revolved around cars. Just look at the crimes and letters yourself. I did.

There is nothing ambiguous about the fact that KQ insinuated himself on the front pages of two Bay Area newspapers in 1947 with stories of little green men from Mars and that Z showed the same propensity for drawing attention to himself with bizarre and frightening material on the front pages of the Bay Area newspapers. If Gyke had done this, it would surely be a nail in the old coffin.

Now, you may not agree that these things make a strong case but there is nothing "ambiguous" about the facts as I present them and they are quite specific for KQ. So why did you say that?

Mike

Richard

5/14/2019 08:09:38 am

Can you answer this question I have Mike:
Kjell Qvale was an intelligent man - so having travelled along Jackson Street and been spotted by Officers Donald Fouke and Eric Zelms, who subsequently (Fouke) were able to give a very detailed description of his clothing and face (Fouke said in 2007 documentary he saw his eyes, but couldn't make out their colour), why Kjell Qvale would travel home and then return to the very area he was almost apprehended. Had Donald Fouke (now having the amended white male description) been still in the area conducting a search of the neighbourhood, he could have spotted the reemerged Qvale and said "that's the white male I passed on the way to the crime scene, he needs to be checked out". Why would Qvale, having just escaped the crime scene by a stroke of luck (NMA description) put himself back into the firing line a matter of minutes later. Not only exit his house, but walk back to the area he was recently spotted by patrolmen. You may have explained this before, but can you reconcile the thinking of Qvale, who was clearly an intelligent man. This question is asked in all fairness, cheers, Richard.

Mike Rodelli

5/14/2019 08:30:08 am

Hi,

That is actually an easy one. According to Rebecca and Lindsey, Z never looked up at them and appeared completely oblivious to the fact that he was being watched. Rebecca was adamant about this, odd as it may seem. This is supported by the fact that after the murder, he just strolled up Cherry Street and then casually strolled down Jackson leaving himself exposed in the neighborhood instead of going up Cherry St. and into the park.

When Fouke slowed down and looked at him and then immediately drove away without so much as a question, this must have reinforced the notion that nobody had seen him. Otherwise, why didn't the police stop him and even ask him anything? Not thinking that anyone had seen him commit the murder and not knowing of the confused description that had allowed his escape, he felt that nobody suspected him.

You may ask why he went up the stairs to the home that was not his own to "escape" if he felt that nobody had seen him. Fair enough. This was maybe a knee-jerk reaction to the police car slowing down and one of the cops looking at him. It must have taken him a few moments to process the fact that he was not in danger of being apprehended and when the car just sped up again, he simply got back on the sidewalk and went him--either via the park or via Jackson St.

Mike

Richard

5/15/2019 05:21:09 am

Here is my opinion which I believe shows an agenda in your writing Mike. This is not a criticism but an observation.

Many (if not all researchers) place value on going to source material such as police reports and FBI files, which they often quote in their writings or books (as accredited sources) I recently showed you two FBI files implicitly stating that the SLA letter was postmarked February 3rd 1974 from postmark 913 (Los Angeles County). Because this did not tally with a section of your book stating February 14th 1974, you stated that you wouldn't believe it until you saw the postmark with your own two eyes, even though you will agree this is source material and the FBI files have no reason to lie. The SLA envelope postmark on Tom Voigt's site is admittedly invisible, but the SLA reproduction on my site clearly shows the postmark with much more clarity (although not fully readable). This is an example of how constantly reproducing or copying a letter or envelope can extinguish features once readable. The version on my site is still an nth degree reproduction, so it's perfectly reasonable to assume the original is readable, when we consider the detail lost from my version to Tom Voigt's. If we can lose detail, then conversely we can gain it. The FBI files clearly state on more than one occasion a February 3rd 1974 postmark, meaning it was sent one day before the kidnapping of Patricia Hearst. This makes much more sense bearing in mind the content of the letter was totally geared towards the SLA. Much more so, than Zodiac just happening to reappear and randomly start talking about the SLA. This letter was not published in the newspapers. Then on February 10th 1974 the Symbionese Liberation Army mailed a letter (also not published in the newspapers) through the Burlingame Postal Annex to the Hearst family or FBI. This letter began and ended in identical fashion to the SLA letter. Both communications began with "Dear" and signed off with "a friend". Two communications 7 days apart, both beginning and ending in identical fashion, and both not published in the newspapers. We would have to believe that, whether the SLA letter was mailed on the 3rd or the 14th, that Zodiac just reappeared after a 3-year hiatus and just happened to write a letter about the Symbionese Liberation Army a matter of days from the actual mailing of a confirmed Symbionese Liberation Army on the 10th, and just coincidentally signed off his letter with the never before signature of "a friend", exactly the same as the confirmed Symbionese Liberation Army communication. That is what I call extremely strong circumstantial evidence that Zodiac was not responsible for the SLA letter.

Now just imagine this hypothetical argument, that Kjell Qvale was 100% found to have been in West Bromwich between February 10th and February 15th of 1974. But he was in San Francisco between February 1st and February 5th. Would you now adopt a fresh approach and accept the February 3rd postmark to keep him in the frame or admit he wasn't responsible for that mailing?

In my eyes it pretty superfluous anyway, because the source material states February 3rd 1974 (913) and the real Symbionese Liberation Army mailed a letter starting with "Dear" and ending with "a friend" within days of a supposed Zodiac letter beginning and ending in identical fashion, clearly showing the Symbionese Liberation Army were responsible for both communications. If this isn't strong circumstantial evidence, then circumstantial evidence, I'm afraid, doesn't exist.

Sigmund

5/15/2019 06:05:17 am

All I can add Richard is that if anyone puts forward a Zodiac suspect and sets out to promote that suspect, they can expect to spend the rest of their life defending their belief in that suspect.

Car’l Krash link

5/15/2019 06:59:51 am

Thanks Richard and Sigmund. I still think it good etiquette to ask permission for long quotes if it’s possible.

I keep asking Mr Rodelli if he’s checked Qvale’s alibi for the Stine murder. Says he was in the UK. No response. Key question. Just wants to trash my book review (which Amazon refused to print) and blog, it seems

Richard, your latest piece hits close to home. A family friend, actor Auggie Schellenberg, played Leonard Pelletier in the movie. A fine performance too, may he RIP. And I think you scored another hit with the Pines letter. Some of the fog around Lass at last removed.

Mike Rodelli

5/15/2019 08:10:43 am

Ugh. The sla letter again. I don't know if I pointed this out before but I just now looked at EVERY SINGLE envelope on Voigt's site. Every one of those over-copied, washed out letters and on EVERY one of them the postmark is visible. So the question becomes why is the one of the SLA letter the only one that does not have a visible postmark, or even the faint remnants of one? IDK.

I finally got to see the reproduction on this site and do see a postmark, albeit not a clear one. Another odd thing about this letter is that it took so long to get from LA to SF. Postmarked on 2/3 and arrived 11 days or so later? People familiar with the postal service in those days say that was highly unlikely. Mail moved efficiently in those days. How could people have done business with mail delivery that was so slow?

I am not going to get into conspiracy theories but one explanation for the missing postmark is that LE created a holdback by attributing this letter to Z. Maybe they whited out the postmark on a copy they released. If it was sent by the SLA, and believe me there was at least one person in the SLA who may have known Old Norse, then Z would have he did not write it. But there has been controversy about this letter, so if this was supposed to be floated as a "genuine" Z letter, LE allowed mixed messages to come out about it. Were it thought to be a genuine letter, then the real Z would have been able to correctly say that he did not send it.

As for Richard's cynicism about me, if someone provided me with absolute physical proof that the SLA letter was in fact from Los Angeles and postmarked on on 2/3, I'd have to say it was not from Z. But that would not make the Z symbol resemble Odin's cross any less. It would not make the symbol on the Halloween card look any less like a bumerke. It would not make the concept of "slaves in the afterlife" any less applicable to the Vikings, and it would not change the fact that the symbol on that Avery card appears to be made up of two Norse runes and some dots (which do NOT often appear in cattle brands, as they do in bumerker).

If the situation is this cut and dried, why has the SLA letter even been floated for so many years as a possible Z communique? Seems strange that LE would not be aware of the postmark that was supposedly staring them in the face and the FBI report on the letter.

The SLA letter, if it is not a Z letter, does not significantly affect the circumstantial case my case against KQ.

As for some comments I saw on Butterfield here, you have it all wrong. My reasons for resenting that guy run deep. He is a liar, a thief and a backstabber. He knows what he has done to people like me, as well as to me in particular. Not the least of those things is that ten years ago, when he declared himself the only "agenda less researcher" in the case, which is a joke, Butterfield made a pronouncement that no amateur researcher should believe anything I or anyone with a suspect says because we "have an agenda."

That is a slap in the face to people who have always done honest research like me. He can take this position since he has no suspect that might even provide him with an "agenda" of his own because after a lifetime of researching the case, he has not been resourceful enough to even develop one.

Final thought: Had I used the SLA letter to make a pronouncement that Z was definitely a Norwegian and then simply scoured the phone directory and found KQ living in PH and said "That's the Zodiac," I'd be in some trouble. But I developed KQ because he BEHAVED like the Zodiac, not because of his heritage, which was a serendipitous discovery. The SLA letter had nothing to do with my developing KQ as a suspect.

Mike

Richard

5/15/2019 08:51:27 am

Mike, I certainly don't knock your belief in Kjell Qvale. I am intelligent enough now, to know their is very little that will change anybody's mind on anything Zodiac if they have been in the Zodiac community for many years - and that applies to everyone, including myself. But we both have figured out the Exorcist letter is likely the 1974 communication of dubious Zodiac origin. Stick it with the SLA letter as equally dubious, and there is a good argument to be had to throw out all the questionable Zodiac communications. So, I don't think Zodiac gave a hoot about these 1974 communications attributed to him. He was probably dead, in jail or smoking his pipe in the Bayou. I doubt he even cared after 1971. Cheers, Richard.

Sigmund

5/15/2019 05:00:37 pm

Funny, Mike Butterfield is one of the few people who I generally always find agreement with in this whole online Zodiac "mess", even though I do not know him and have in fact never met him. I did email him one time but did not receive a reply, but I won't hold that against him as I know he values his personal space and has had to deal with some very nasty and unpleasant opposition over the years. I see Butterfield as the order amidst the chaos and only wish there could be more researchers of his caliber. I find he is generally on target with his analysis and critiques, which can be thorough and ruthless, sometimes even scathing, as he is never afraid to state the facts in the interests of professional integrity. He has shown a distaste for those who take liberties with the truth or who try to select and twist factual details in order to support a pre-existing theory or suspect. This has made him few friends, but in the field of Zodiac investigation who needs friends anyway? I note that Ms Betts has frequently referred to him as Mike "Bitterfield", when he has never had to resort to calling her names. In fact all he did was call her out on several salient points, and she was the one who made it "personal". In my experience, authors who take criticism relating to what they have written personally and who then resort to personal attacks in retaliation are possibly just showing us how un-professional they really are. Whatever people say about Mike Butterfield, nobody could accuse him of unprofessional conduct without being disingenuous, and those who do accuse him are generally the ones who have misinterpreted his professional criticisms as a personal attack.

Mike Rodelli

5/16/2019 08:06:54 am

Hi,

You clearly don't know Butterfield like I do, nor have you been victimized by him like I have, lol. I stand by what I said. If he has conned you with his sanctimony, that is not my problem lol.

If anybody has a right to be pissed off at M. Butterfield, it is me. He is not what he appears to be. Proceed at your own risk!

I am still interested in what your perspective is in your critiques of my research. Are you a rank amateur (which is what I believe) or do you have some standing?

Mike

Richard

5/16/2019 08:56:43 am

Mike, who do you class as a person with some standing. Someone may have an inordinate and vast knowledge of the case, having discovered many things in the Zodiac case, yet if you disagree with everything they say, does that lower their standing. How do you classify the most widely recognized Zodiac contributors such as Michael Butterfield. I ask this pertinent question because we have to separate knowledge of the case, to what new discoveries they have brought to the case. Thanks, Richard.

Sigmund

5/16/2019 05:09:41 pm

"Are you a rank amateur (which is what I believe) or do you have some standing?"

Too funny! This is one of the first questions that "I'm right, you're all wrong" Zodiac researchers pose whenever faced with criticism of their theory. The question in fact speaks volumes about the researcher, and in fact possesses a kind of implosive reverse answer within itself.

Back in my university years, I often asked my professors critical questions. They always answered them kindly and to the point, even when I disagreed with them on details. A questioning mind was in fact something they encouraged. Never once did they frown down on me and say "We are the experts who have the weight of our laurels on our side and who are you? Just an insignificant amateur student whose questions account for nothing against our reputation of immense genius!" I am sure if any of them had said this, the entire lecture hall would have burst into laughter, considering it a form of self-mockery.

If anyone wants to watch some perfect examples of the extremes of self-mockery, they could not do better than to tune in to this guy, who seems to have missed his true calling as a stand up comic. Shooting himself in the foot seems to be his "modus operandi". First time I watched one of his videos I thought he must be joking and this must be some kind of satire about how to lead yourself up a garden path in 30 seconds. But no, the guy is actually very serious! Haha! It is even funnier that there are people in this world who actually agree with him. Hilarious! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnBSKquWVuAgqu7qCuXhskw

I am of course not comparing this YouTube guy to the Qvale theory, which at least has some grounding in reality, I am just citing it as an example of the kind of "garden path thinking" that can lead researchers, even a team of professional ones, on to a false or illusory trail. They keep following, ignoring all alternative routes or offshoots, conveniently removing any blocks in their way like fallen trees or rocks, and viewing all such interference as "irrelevant" in the interests of achieving their single-minded goal. Inevitably they lose themselves on a singular train of thought, and before long they think they are the only ones who must possess the truth, and therefore anybody else who has alternative thought, or finds problems with the theory, must either be blind, ignorant, or stupid.

Richard

5/17/2019 02:07:49 am

The guy on Youtube is the perfect example as to why we have so many people scared to constructively critique material, and that includes suspects and theories. You are often met with this kind of vitriolic response laden full of ad hominem attacks, so ably portrayed in this video, invoking endless slurs just because I disagreed with his methodology. It's a form of identity politics. If people simply stated under their videos "only comments agreeing with me will be allowed", then I wouldn't have bothered. I have always stated that people are allowed to disagree with anything I write, no matter whether I agree with their analysis or not, because I don't possess the fragile ego safe space mentality that is pervasive in the world today. When people like this guy on Youtube resorts to four-letter tirades and personal attacks, then he has effectively lost the argument and that video is testament to everything that is wrong with the Zodiac community in 2019. I knew when I posted my original comment on his video, I realized after a few hours the kind of response I would receive based on his previous outings. I removed it because I knew I wouldn't get a constructive response, which he so ably confirmed.

Mike asked the question "what your perspective is in your critiques of my research". Rightly or wrongly, I understand why people shy away from critiquing other people's material, because if it's a constructive but critical review of their material, it can be met with utter hatred and hostility - so many prefer not to poke the hornets nest. I am not presupposing Mike's response to such a critique, but I understand why people are wary of delivering such a critique, because often (no matter how constructive) you can bet your bottom dollar the overwhelming majority of these interactions descend into a torrent of abuse, where fragile ego's get hurt. Many people are simply unable to grasp the concept that somebody can possibly disagree with such an overwhelming flurry of evidence that they have presented. A rank amateur or somebody of standing in the Zodiac scene is down to each individual reading the material that particular person presents. Some people may like my website and articles, yet some will say I'm a rank amateur. It's in the eye of the beholder - but I certainly don't get upset by it, as clearly demonstrated on Youtube. Good, honest and fair disagreement, in a constructive debate is in danger of being lost in 2019, where there seems to be a "safe space" crowd who cannot accept people who disagree with them, as we see in universities up and down our countries. I would love to give a fair and balanced critique of your book Mike, which I have already stated covers the crimes extremely well, but rightly or wrongly I feel I would have to tiptoe around the Qvale part. I'm not saying you would get angry, but you can understand why people are hesitant to be forthcoming.

Mike Rodelli

5/17/2019 05:42:18 am

Hi Sig,

If you think that Butterfield is the order here among the chaos, you don't know much about Butterfield. It is funny that you never even asked me what Butterfield did to me to make me say the things I do. Don't bother to ask now that I'm the one who has brought up the point. What does that say about YOUR fairmindedness? Why didn't you even want to see if I could justify my words?

You obviously have your opinion of Butterfield that appears to be set in stone and far be it for me to try to change your mind. How does that jibe with your criticisms of me for continuing to think that KQ was the Zodiac In fact, having not read my book, how can you critique my evidence as "ambiguous, etc," as you did, when you don't even know what it is??

If you haven't read my book ,I am not going to debate the merits or lack thereof of it with you.

Richard, if Sigmund is a detective or profiler has helped police around the world solve over 50 cold cases, then I will have to accept his criticism as being on par with Mr. Walter's believe that KQ WAS the Zodiac killer. Right now I believe Mr. Walter. It's like you'd believe an auto mechanic with 20 years of experience to diagnose your car before you'd believe old Fred down the street who toys around with cars on the weekends.

Mike

Car’l Krash link

5/17/2019 07:56:46 am

Here is a link to my review along with comments from Mr Rodelli fyi https://zodiackmak.com/2018/11/09/what-i-think-i-know-so-far-in-progress-%f0%9f%9b%92/

Sigmund

5/17/2019 05:10:26 pm

I have seen snippets of the Butterfield saga plastered on forums on the internet, which can easily be found by way of a simple Google search. After reading through them I can only come to the conclusion it is all a case of "He said, she said, and enough said!"

The interesting thing is that Mike Butterfield has been surprisingly mute on the whole subject, and given present proceedings I think I can well understand his reasons. If people are throwing hot potatoes at you from all directions it is not wise to hang around and play catch. Nevertheless I would need to hear Mike Butterfield's side of the story before making any judgements of my own, otherwise my conclusions would be entirely one-sided, which just wouldn't be right. Somehow I am sure his story would be very different. I note that he has never altered his critique on his website. My guess is he is a bit of a "Devil's Advocate" who likes to play both sides to get to the bottom of the truth, then departs to present his ultimate conclusions on his website, as it appears to him. So this is why he sometimes apparently "picks a side" but later finds problems, so quickly departs the scene, leaving that "side" to fight their own lost battles. I am sure he is astute enough to know a lost cause when he comes across one. This may not appear ethical to some, but the finest journalists do this kind of thing all the time.

As for the quip about amateurs and professionals, I think Richard has already discussed the merits of this kind of thinking in depth, to which Mike Rodelli has clearly responded with his opinion. But somehow I suspect even if I was a leading criminal profiler who has helped to solve over 50 cases, Mike Rodelli would still not accept my critique, instead would look for reasons to discredit me and make me seem like a fraud.

I am always reminded of the peculiar bitterness surrounding the Bone Wars whenever these kinds of eccentric spats raise their ugly heads. The Bone Wars make for very insightful and interesting reading. Lessons there to be learnt from history, I think!

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2017/05/08/the-bone-wars-the-heated-rivalry-between-two-paleontologists-that-led-to-great-fossil-discoveries-and-their-own-social-demise/

Mike Rodelli

5/20/2019 06:54:20 am

Hi,

No, Butterfield is keeping his mouth shut because he knows that what I, in particular, am saying is true. Let him just try to say it isn't. My credibility, as evidenced by 20 years of conscientious and diligently documented research into the Zodiac mystery, simply dwarfs his regardless of whether people subscribe to my conclusions about KQ or not. And lots of people not named after a German psychoanalyst know that.

Mike

Mike Rodelli

5/20/2019 07:27:15 am

Hi,

Only in the Zodiac case would someone like me saying that they will take the word of a highly respected profiler, who has helped solve scores of cases, on some issue of interpretation of evidence be ridiculed for not accepting the impressions of rank amateurs.

I'm supposed to give equal weight to a dentist with 20 years of experience and some guy who reads about what a root canal is on WebMD. Give me a break! I'll take the professional anytime, and so would any other sane person. For some reason, people watch TV profilers and think that they can do that stuff just as effectively themselves. Not so.

Then it is said that if someone here WERE a credentialed profiler with a large sample size of successes solving cases, I'd try to disagree with them/tear them down. That is a completely irrelevant argument because apparently neither of you IS a credentialed profiler. Bring one in who may disagree with Walter AND who can justify what they are saying with logical arguments and then we'll talk.

Here is a snippet from Tom's board:

"Here is an early example of Butterfield fudging things to make them work for Butterfield. In a very early Z show, like 1999 or so, Butterfield is shown explaining how the little x's on the crossed circle from the 11/9 bus bomb letter lined up with the crime scenes, One little x lined up nicely with the Stine murder scene. One little x lined up with the LB murder scene. One lined up with BRS. But the other little x's did not accommodate him and line up with LHR. So he moved the LHR crime scene on his little piece of acetate to the SW (as I recall) to accommodate the uncooperative little x. Then they all lined up extremely nicely."

Yeah. This is what highly repsected researchers do all the time lol.

Mike

Sigmund

5/20/2019 10:16:42 pm

Hmm, if we are all amateurs who nobody should take any notice of, why is Mike Rodelli even bothering to post to us, considering our views are amateurish and therefore, we can only presume, of no value anyway? Is his purpose merely to tell us he is a professional because he only sourced the opinions of other professionals and if we disagree with some points that makes us dimwitted amateurs by comparison? Sorry but I don't get it, nor do I really get the relevance of Butterfield moving little "x's" around, except to say he was probably just suggesting scenarios the way we all have at various points in the past. I guess it is true that what some people see in the Zodiac stuff as being absolutely critical to their theory, others may just consider trivial. That guy on You Tube is an extreme example of someone who places huge importance on his own trivial interpretations.

Richard

5/21/2019 12:23:07 am

"I'm supposed to give equal weight to a dentist with 20 years of experience and some guy who reads about what a root canal is on WebMD. Give me a break! I'll take the professional anytime".

I couldn't agree more - but I hope you consider this statement when you write about the reviews on your book "Since then, it has received 4.5 stars on Amazon out of 28 total reviews and a perfect 7 of 7 five star reviews on Amazon.co.uk".

Do you consider the intelligence or standing of these individuals in the Zodiac community when considering their rating of your Kindle.

This is not an attack on your book Mike (which I have commended for the extensive coverage of the Zodiac case), but quoting "stars" and "reviews" without assessing the competency of the reviewer is akin to the argument you are making above.

Mike Rodelli

5/22/2019 04:52:26 am

I hope one of you develops a suspect one day and gets to see how difficult and thankless it is to do this stuff. If I am wrong and you're so smart, you two solve the case. See if you can get anyone to back your conclusions.

I get a kick out of Sigmund's explanation of Butterfield moving X's around to create possible "scenarios." LOL. What nonsense. The crime had already taken place and it had occurred at a specific point on the map for which Butterfield needed an alternative truth. In fact, he beat Kellyanne Conway to the concept!

There is only one person I knw who would so slavishly defend Butterfield. I'll leave it to you to figure out who it is.

Mike

Richard

5/22/2019 05:36:21 am

I haven't bashed you once for having a suspect Mike - I've asked the occasional question regarding Qvale. I don't know why people have suspects if the premise is we are not allowed to question or discuss their viability. You know as well as I do, the chances of one of us identifying the Zodiac Killer after many decades (without any viable DNA) is slim to none. If I had a suspect I would expect to be peer reviewed, just in the way science is - and certainly expect to have supporters and detractors. The key is debating the merits and pitfalls of any given suspect constructively. Too many people mistake constructive debate and attacks as the same thing, and up to now, I don't remember belittling or criticizing you once for having a suspect.
The reason I don't have a suspect is because I don't believe the circumstantial evidence is strong enough against any of the named suspects - certainly not enough to facilitate any being indicted by a grand jury - which is the least requirement for achieving a criminal prosecution of any said suspect (even if they were alive). Without DNA, fingerprints or tangible physical evidence, this case is effectively unsolvable by anybody, no matter how smart one is. Certainly from somebody 5,000 miles or more away. And you are smart enough to know that too.

Sigmund

5/22/2019 04:09:07 pm

"I hope one of you develops a suspect one day and gets to see how difficult and thankless it is to do this stuff. If I am wrong and you're so smart, you two solve the case. See if you can get anyone to back your conclusions."

Simple answer is, been there done that several times before, now know better, but you do seem unwilling to accept the warnings. In any case you have already made it quite clear that I am just an amateur, so anything I say is not important to your case, which makes me wonder why you are still pushing at my buttons for a reaction?

"I get a kick out of Sigmund's explanation of Butterfield moving X's around to create possible "scenarios." LOL. What nonsense. The crime had already taken place and it had occurred at a specific point on the map for which Butterfield needed an alternative truth. In fact, he beat Kellyanne Conway to the concept!"

I still have no idea what you are getting at here, because I am not a member of any of the big forums that you apparently like to inhabit, and so I don't really know and for that matter don't really care about the all too emotional "power plays" and intrigue that various people like to create and involve themselves in. Personally I prefer not to become a martyr to any single Zodiac "cause".

"There is only one person I knw who would so slavishly defend Butterfield. I'll leave it to you to figure out who it is."

I very much doubt I am the person you think I am, but I'll leave you to continue drawing the long bow.

Luke A

5/23/2019 08:11:31 pm

Hi, just bought the book and am enjoying it. I have a question. Was any of the brass shells or bullets ever examined and entered into any databases? I know this might be a silly question, but I don’t recall ever reading about this?

Luke A

5/26/2019 10:54:15 am

Mike,
In reading about the quality of the Z logo on the hooded suit, and the comical boxy nature of the hood, and the person you suspect, it got me to thinking about how the hooded costume was created.

That costume seems consistent with the seat covers for convertible BMWs of the time. The logo might have been professionally stitched in by the company on the back of the seat where the chest would be and the boxy head could be the headrest cover.

Luke

5/30/2019 07:41:47 am

Any chance Melvin Belli was the Zodiac?

Sigmund

5/30/2019 03:29:55 pm

Well he did suffer from headaches. lol

Mike Rodelli

6/3/2019 09:12:13 am

Hi Luke,

Thee are a lot of might be's and could be's in the case. Anything is possible with respect to the creation of the hood. However, your credibility in the case is based on what you can PROVE.

Hope you enjoy the book.

I never said I was not an amateur researcher. In fact, always refer to myself in that way. BUT, I've had some very well respected professionals, people like Mr. Walter, who have lots of experience in solving cold cases, get behind my research and even THEY are ignored.

I love it when somebody like a Mark Hewitt or any number of people who had no clue about behavioral profiling and precisely zero cases solved say, "I don't agree with Walter. Here is MY profile of Zodiac." Such hubris! Give us a break. You have no standing in profiling and nobody cares what your "profile" says. The problem is that Criminal Minds makes everyone think they can be a profiler. It's easy lol. Just start bloviating.

Mike

Luke

6/3/2019 10:06:56 am

Thanks for the reply Mike. I appreciate all the work and research you did and the courage it takes to stand up against the inevitable armchair generals and "never done anything" critics.

Sigmund

6/3/2019 04:03:01 pm

Mental note to self: If anyone is going to write a book on Zodiac that matters, the opinions of those who are considered "well respected professionals" in their field are evidently very important towards making your case matter. And as for those "other readers", well who cares what they think? So it becomes, for want of a better word, an exercise in biased elitism, and the result must therefore be a purely academic one based on one's highly selective peerage - excluding any negative peerage from the so-called "professionals" among those "other people".

Mike Rodelli

8/13/2019 09:00:02 am

Hi Luke,

This was not something that would have occurred to me. Might be worth checking into. The costume may have been based on the seat cover but I am not sure why BMW or other car companies would stitch a crossed circle into it but stranger things have happened. I do know that these cars had to be protected in some way in transit from getting soiled, banged up, etc.

Sigmund, I don't demand that people accept that KQ was Z because Mr. Walter says so. In fact, he believes me case should stand on its own merits regardless of his opinion. But I do hope that people who know who Mr. Walter is and who are aware of his track record and his reputation MIGHT tend to give my own conclusions a little more weight.

I'll tell you what. It you ever write a book and solve a cold case, I'll
ignore any experts you marshal to support your conclusions. Deal?

Mike

Sigmund

8/13/2019 04:14:38 pm

Sigh, you do yourself no favors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Harry

5/27/2020 02:25:01 am

I am curious to know what companies did Qvale own and/or his offsprings ...More I would like to know if they owned a steel company etc ...more tp thgis but will get on to you if you can confirm .You will have to run with it and check it out .Just a slight suspician of something happening recently etc

Comments are closed.

THE HUNT FOR ZODIAC BY MIKE RODELLI

Archives