The number of individuals who have Zodiac Killer "pet suspects" has exponentially grown over the last two decades, proliferated through the wide reaching tentacles of the internet. Many (but not all), when pressed, have stated that they are 95 to 100% confident they have identified the Zodiac Killer in the murders of David Faraday, Betty Lou Jensen, Darlene Ferrin, Cecelia Shepard and Paul Stine. It is fair to say that Zodiac investigators and enthusiasts such as Michael Morford, Mike Rodelli, Drew Beeson and Adam Ivester, naming William McDuff, Kjell Qvale, Don Cheney and John Parr Cox respectively, all fall into this category of confidence upwards of 95%. However, the number of people exhibiting such belief is much more widespread and not confined to these individuals. Furthermore, those who are prepared to write books, create long-standing YouTube channels and heavily contribute to Zodiac Killer forums naming their suspect over many years or even decades, do not do so unless they are utterly convinced they have identified the Zodiac Killer beyond a reasonable doubt.
So, if these individuals were the judge in a bench trial, where the decision of guilt or innocence fell squarely on their shoulders, how many Zodiac researchers would convict their own suspect based on their own research, and be prepared to sentence their suspect to death through capital punishment? In other words (assuming their suspect was still alive), would they be prepared to kill that person based on their internet research. It's a frightening thought, but it's a legitimate question. Assuming the Zodiac Killer is one individual - and using William McDuff, Kjell Qvale, Don Cheney and John Parr Cox as examples - it would mean that at a bare minimum, three innocent individuals would be executed by three Zodiac researchers. Multiply those suspects to 300 individuals, would mean that 299 people would be wrongly executed. The fact that 300 "suspects" can be identified beyond a reasonable doubt by Zodiac researchers, where at least 299 are totally innocent of the crime, shows beyond any doubt, how horrible a technique internet sleuthing is when pointing the finger at people for the Zodiac crimes.
So, if these individuals were the judge in a bench trial, where the decision of guilt or innocence fell squarely on their shoulders, how many Zodiac researchers would convict their own suspect based on their own research, and be prepared to sentence their suspect to death through capital punishment? In other words (assuming their suspect was still alive), would they be prepared to kill that person based on their internet research. It's a frightening thought, but it's a legitimate question. Assuming the Zodiac Killer is one individual - and using William McDuff, Kjell Qvale, Don Cheney and John Parr Cox as examples - it would mean that at a bare minimum, three innocent individuals would be executed by three Zodiac researchers. Multiply those suspects to 300 individuals, would mean that 299 people would be wrongly executed. The fact that 300 "suspects" can be identified beyond a reasonable doubt by Zodiac researchers, where at least 299 are totally innocent of the crime, shows beyond any doubt, how horrible a technique internet sleuthing is when pointing the finger at people for the Zodiac crimes.
Every Zodiac researcher must believe they use better investigative techniques than everybody else, because if they didn't, they would be advocating for somebody else's suspect. This means that every researcher must be identifying flaws in other peoples reasoning, that they fail to recognise within themselves. It is this bias that is at the heart of flawed reasoning. Take this sort of reasoning and apply it to eleven followers of each proposed "suspect", and you have a jury of like-minded individuals you wouldn't want anywhere near a justice system deciding on the life or death of another human being.
Many Zodiac researchers cannot understand why others don't see their suspect as strongly as they see them - and would ideally wish that most people would agree with their conclusions. It's obviously more pleasurable when you have spent a long time researching and presenting a suspect, to have people concur with your findings, rather than reject them. If such a Zodiac researcher was the prosecutor in a jury trial where their suspect was on trial, it would be the clear objective of that researcher to sell their findings to 12 jury members and convince them of the suspect's guilt. If the jury members thought like the researcher, it could be argued that a guilty verdict and possible death sentence would be a satisfactory verdict for the Zodiac researcher, who has sold his beliefs beyond a reasonable doubt. If we scale this argument up to 300 Zodiac researchers, we would effectively have a potential 299 murderers by proxy. The question being - would these Zodiac researchers really see somebody executed based on the research they've compiled - or would they take a step backwards and consider the difference between belief and reality?
Many Zodiac researchers cannot understand why others don't see their suspect as strongly as they see them - and would ideally wish that most people would agree with their conclusions. It's obviously more pleasurable when you have spent a long time researching and presenting a suspect, to have people concur with your findings, rather than reject them. If such a Zodiac researcher was the prosecutor in a jury trial where their suspect was on trial, it would be the clear objective of that researcher to sell their findings to 12 jury members and convince them of the suspect's guilt. If the jury members thought like the researcher, it could be argued that a guilty verdict and possible death sentence would be a satisfactory verdict for the Zodiac researcher, who has sold his beliefs beyond a reasonable doubt. If we scale this argument up to 300 Zodiac researchers, we would effectively have a potential 299 murderers by proxy. The question being - would these Zodiac researchers really see somebody executed based on the research they've compiled - or would they take a step backwards and consider the difference between belief and reality?
RSS Feed
