"BLEEDING KNIFE OF ZODIAC" Letter

He wouldn't hate it, he already got his ten bucks

I am interested in this message about “the bleeding knife of Zodiac” whether or not it was from the Zodiac.

Whoever drew this picture had knowledge of a bleeding knife which does seem to be a reference to Jack the Ripper.

The term “bleeding knife” refers to a particular type of knife also known as a lancet. Depending upon the context, it could be used by a doctor or by a butcher.

Maybe someone can help to find a photo of a bleeding knife in which the curvature of the blade specifically matches the drawing of “the bleeding knife of Zodiac”.

Be carefull, I know of some who would say it confirms that it proves Z, Black Dahlia, Lipstick, I45, etc. killers were the same man.
And this 'rippers' name was Jack too !

morf13 wrote:

When new things like this letter get found or brought into the spotlight for Zodiac discussion, they should be shared among various Zodiac forums, at least in my opinion. Yet we see posts like this on another Zodiac forum:

"I was hoping this problem would go away, but it's been several months and I don't see an end in sight. So, we have a new rule:
DO NOT REPOST CONTENT THAT ORIGINATES AT THIS DISCUSSION FORUM TO OTHER SITES.
We are seeing members of this forum put the work in to dig up new and interesting pieces of info, and as soon as it is posted here for discussion, other members repost it for discussion elsewhere.
If you come up with something new, by all means, also include it on your personal site. But to rival Zodiac sites? Please. If other forums need new stuff to discuss, they can get off their asses and put in the work like we do.
I'd hate to have to ban someone for violating this rule, but I will.
It's pretty simple, really: What originates here gets discussed here."

This post was emailed to me, and I got a chuckle. 'Rival Zodiac sites'?? Are you serious? This is the type of stuff that the police did back in the late 60's when Z was still doing his thing. I dont know about anybody else, but my goal is to see this case solved. If everybody felt this way, they would want to share ideas and info. Whatever, I guess I just have to consider the source in this situation, and then it doesnt surprise me. We share ideas and info, and we dont even charge you $$$, LOL. If anyone here sees anything they want to share with other forums, please do, we want to get the truth out there, and maybe one day, see the case solved.

an FYI: I asked Tom to clarify his policy about this, and he has. Naturally, people can repost their own information and such at any board they choose; he simply meant you can't repost what someone else posted without getting their permission first.

I had emailed him about this on july 1, 2010, because I was not sure what he meant. Here are the emails, with names and my email addy removed.

Quote :

-----Original Message-----
From: tomvoigt@zodiackiller.com
To:
Sent: Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:10 pm
Subject: Re: reposting content

Sure, if someone posts something new at my site and they also want to post it elsewhere, that's fine. What I am trying to avoid is crap like "xxxxxxxxx" taking something new "yyyyyyy" posted at my site and reposting it at morf and bitterfield's sites. if "yyyyyyy" wants to post it there, he can do it himself. if discussing the thread at my site isn't good enough for "xxxxxxxxx" , tough. i am not interested in feeding the trolls.




On Thu 01/07/10 1:38 PM , Tracers sent:

ok thanks--another question you may want to clarify about reposting: if someone posts something at your site, since they posted it, can they then repost it at other sites? are you saying people can't repost their own stuff, or that people can't repost stuff from other people? i don't have any exciting new info to post, but bet some people who do find and post things may be wondering if you are saying once they post something to your board, they can't post it elsewhere--you did say people can post things at their own sites, but what if people don't have their own sites? if they find the info, can they repost it elsewhere? lol--sorry if i sound anal--just not sure what you meant.

Ricardo wrote:

I am interested in this message about “the bleeding knife of Zodiac” whether or not it was from the Zodiac.

Whoever drew this picture had knowledge of a bleeding knife which does seem to be a reference to Jack the Ripper.

The term “bleeding knife” refers to a particular type of knife also known as a lancet. Depending upon the context, it could be used by a doctor or by a butcher.

Maybe someone can help to find a photo of a bleeding knife in which the curvature of the blade specifically matches the drawing of “the bleeding knife of Zodiac”.

I dont know much about lancets but the picture made me think of a fillet or skinning knife probaly because I like to fish and I do a little hunting. Also I am of the opinion that z was an outdoorsman.
If your think z might have been a doctor you might think of a lancet first or if you think maybe he was a rich man with to much time on his hands you might think of some kind of sword.
Its kind of hard to tell by the drawing what the artist (I use this term loosely ) was trying to represent. I do wonder if he was trying to show a broken tip on the end of the knife and wouldnt that be interesting.
But mostly I just see some very bad artwork.
Here are a few pics I found for what they are worth. I dont think any of them precisely match the drawing. I didnt find any lancets.

Labeled as a boning knife the backwards curve is to give the user more cutting surface to work with........excellent for cutting down to the bone and then along the bone seperating the bone from the flesh also know as filleting.


Same concept


Labeled as a Celtic knife..........I would have called it a short sword but I am not much into this kind of thing........I think the Japenese also used a backwards curved knife or sword? And prob other cultures as well.

I'm just going to add this, then drop the subject, since it's all way off topic and not worth arguing about...

If the idea of all of these message boards and websites is to try and solve this case, then all of the information should be made available to everyone, period. It shouldn't matter who posted it or where it was posted. If information isn't shared, it's a detriment to everyone. Now, that said, Tom posted this today:

Quote :

I don't really care if stuff that originates here gets reposted elsewhere, so long as the original poster is credited and users don't abandon discussion here for another website.

That's a little different than what was in his email and post 2-1/2 months ago. However, I agree with the sentiment of crediting someone who finds a piece of information or comes up with an idea. I've always credited anything I've used elsewhere (as I did with the "State" letter and Morf, for example) and I think everyone else should too.

Okay, back to the discussion...

Looks like the "Celtic" knife, also a knife called the Khukri, used by the Gurkha.

AK
If are using the drawing as an exact representation I will go with the "Celtic" knife as well.
This in my mind would tend to point towards a well off "playboy" as these kinds of ancient weapons (even the good quality replicas) are not cheap.
Altho I do know a few persons who have one or two swords, maces and the like on the wall and they are not what most of us would call rich.
However the drawing is so bad it makes me wonder how close it is to what he had in mind.
BTW I had to look up the Gurkah......interesting.....But I had thought they where going to be a lost tribe of Klingons

What do you (or anyone) make of the tip? I mean how could he or she (just to be fair) screw it up that bad?
Does anyone think it is possible that the artist was trying to show a broken tip?
Of course I am referencing the Bates confession letter where the author claimed the knife broke.........most seem to assume a clean break but it did not have to be.
I know the murder weapon was never found but was the broken knife confirmed during the autopsy?

Jon55 wrote:

What do you (or anyone) make of the tip? I mean how could he or she (just to be fair) screw it up that bad?
Does anyone think it is possible that the artist was trying to show a broken tip?
Of course I am referencing the Bates confession letter where the author claimed the knife broke.........most seem to assume a clean break but it did not have to be.
I know the murder weapon was never found but was the broken knife confirmed during the autopsy?

I had asked Ed Neil about this, and he told me that there wasn't any piece of broken knife in Cheri Jo Bates' body. When the confession writer said the knife broke, it likely meant that the handle of the knife broke or the knife blade broke away from the handle. Of course, neither of these things can be proven without finding the knife, the likelihood of which is very slim.

I know Dennis likes to push his broken-tipped knife, but there's no evidence to suggest the tip of the knife broke off.

I think whoever did this drawing just did a really bad job of drawing a knife blade.

I'm thinking the knife was a switchblade-type weapon, and the locking mechanism broke from all that ferocious stabbing and slashing.

Remember, as well...the writer says the knife broke before he finally killed her with it, so whatever he meant by "broke", it still was very usable.

The letter says " I PLUNGED THE KNIFE INTO HER AND IT BROKE"
So according to the author he stabbed her and it broke.
I do not buy that the handle broke or the blade came loose or the locking mechanism broke those parts are the strongest.
Not that it is impossible but if any of that happened then it was one cheap knife.
This says to me the blade prob chipped a little.........most likely the point.
When you sharpen a knife you are basicaly whittling away at it so the sharp edge and the point are the weakest parts.
They should have found something in the autopsy.........of course they did not have the letter at the time so it is possible
the piece was so small they missed it.

So IF this was the case, what Jon just wrote: This says to me the blade prob chipped a little.........most likely the point.

Then that's what the pic. of the bleeding Knife Letter looks like. Looks like some of the tip broke off.

I think that is one possible way to look at it Zam.
But the drawing is so bad.......its hard to say for sure.
I also wonder why it is so badly drawn......high on drugs? nervous? in a car?
You look at the "This state is in trouble" letter and it looks pretty well done.
But then the drawing looks like crap.
Did he do it this way on purpose?
Did he get excited while drawing the knife........possibly have a memory so strong it was almost like a flashback?

I got lots of ?'s and no answers.

morf13 wrote:

I have heard "whispers" that this letter has been declared a fraud,and that Tom V had this material long time ago. I find that hard to believe as I have never seen this anyplace before, anywhere on the net, and I have never heard anybody that claimed to have seen it. Even on some of the other Z forums, there has been talk of this letter, but not of the images.

http://www.zodiackiller.com/FBIZodiac4.pdf

(pp. 41 & 42 for starters, also 124)

It appears he did have these, and may just have not released everything he had to "the public at large"...

Now, as far as it having "officially" been declared a fraud; I have not found anything yet...

Also, you may have been the first one to get the actual letter, as we don't know for sure if he is releasing everything he has...

In any case, you are the first one to be generous with it, which means more to everyone...

That is just the FBI publicly released Zodiac file, also available at the FBI website. It does NOT contain the actual letters.

If Tom actually has the letters, he should post them and the envelope, which I am still waiting for.

Tom claims he had this a decade ago, posted it, then decided it was fake and took it down. If true, let him post the envelope.

Tom has the May 1978 possible Zodiac letter mentioning the Manson Family, which has never been authenticated and most researchers think it fake, yet Tom has it up at his site. Odd why he would decide to remove the Fairfield letters, when the FBI analysis says they "probably" are real.

At this site, it will not be Morf, me, Zam, Auth or Solar decding what is real and what is fake. Suspected and possible Zodiac letters and envelopes will be posted for all to see, and sent to all major sites and researchers (as I sent this to Tom, Mike B, Chris Y, Ricardo, Doug Oswell and Roland), so that people can view them, study them, discuss, debate and decide for themselves.

AK Wilks wrote:

That is just the FBI publicly released Zodiac file, also available at the FBI website. It does NOT contain the actual letters.

If Tom actually has the letters, he should post them and the envelope, which I am still waiting for.

Tom claims he had this a decade ago, posted it, then decided it was fake and took it down. If true, let him post the envelope.

Tom has the May 1978 possible Zodiac letter mentioning the Manson Family, which has never been authenticated and most researchers think it fake, yet Tom has it up at his site. Odd why he would decide to remove the Fairfield letters, when the FBI analysis says they "probably" are real.

At this site, it will not be Morf, me, Zam, Auth or Solar decding what is real and what is fake. Suspected and possible Zodiac letters and envelopes will be posted for all to see, and sent to all major sites and researchers (as I sent this to Tom, Mike B, Chris Y, Ricardo, Doug Oswell and Roland), so that people can view them, study them, discuss, debate and decide for themselves.

I agree. Not gonna get into a contest with Tom about what he had or didnt have 10 or 12 years ago. I just know from past run-ins with him, he has told me things that simply are not true. One thing in particular he emailed me about, and I was suspicious. When I checked with a Detective about it, the Detective confirmed that my suspicions were correct, and Tom had not given me the correct info. Based on that, and other things, I simply choose to believe that he is being less than honest, and am quite surprised that "old-timers" at his site had never seen that letter, nor did it wind up on the net. People like Butterfield, Ed Neil, Sandy Betts, etc that have been researching Z for years never saw it, so I think that is further evidence.

With that being said, I do applaud Tom for bringing atention to, and supplying the bulk of, most of the Z materials around. My only suggestion is, Just be honest.

AK Wilks wrote:

That is just the FBI publicly released Zodiac file, also available at the FBI website. It does NOT contain the actual letters.

If Tom actually has the letters, he should post them and the envelope, which I am still waiting for.

Tom claims he had this a decade ago, posted it, then decided it was fake and took it down. If true, let him post the envelope.

Tom has the May 1978 possible Zodiac letter mentioning the Manson Family, which has never been authenticated and most researchers think it fake, yet Tom has it up at his site. Odd why he would decide to remove the Fairfield letters, when the FBI analysis says they "probably" are real.

At this site, it will not be Morf, me, Zam, Auth or Solar decding what is real and what is fake. Suspected and possible Zodiac letters and envelopes will be posted for all to see, and sent to all major sites and researchers (as I sent this to Tom, Mike B, Chris Y, Ricardo, Doug Oswell and Roland), so that people can view them, study them, discuss, debate and decide for themselves.

Well said. We are working to get stuff and share it with everyone at all sites. We arent telling them what to do with it or what to think. If you think its fake, that's great. If you think its real, thats cool too.

The doc experts could never come to a conclusion on the May '78 KHJ Channel Nine letter.It was hidden from view as well as the envelope for many years until a photographer found it.The LAPD Archivst would not allow him access to it to photograph it,including the envelope,etc.It was very tense until Parks allowed him to take the photos.

He went to then Chief Parks and got permission.I worked with him getting a copy which took months.It was very,very frustrating going back and forth with him on getting those photographs,which I finally got during Christmas one year-nice gift! I was the first to publish the envelope as shown on my site.

I have gone through every Z letter and compared them to every detail on the envelope and the letter itself.Even the minutest details are in that letter, which amazed me.This includes content or similar Z- like statements,etc.
Some of my analysis is on my site.I still need to post the rest of my study,which took months.I used ultraviolet light with extreme magnification and found quite a lot of matches to known Z missives.

All of the carping has come from those who have only done a lazy cursory hatchet job.I say spend the time -lots of it -before one goes off half cocked.The CM reference turns them off I know.

Kelleher and others do believe it is probably a Z missive.I do.Keep in mind it had been four years since his last communication.

I also find the May 78 letter very interesting. I appreciate your efforts to find it and post it. And your analysis. I have posted it here and commented on it. Among the many interesting things about this letter is that the sign off is very similar to the sign off on the EAR poem, which is confirmed from that offender as it had inside info on a victim.

My only point was that Tom has posted and left up the disputed May 78 letter, yet claims he took down the disputed Fairfield letters.

Odd.

But in any event, I am glad that almost everyone seems to appreciate what Morf, me and Zam are doing here, whether or not they think the Fairfield letters real, fake or mixed - which is let everyone see it, all sites, and let everyone decide for themselves.

AK Wilks wrote:

But in any event, I am glad that almost everyone seems to appreciate what Morf, me and Zam are doing here, whether or not they think the Fairfield letters real, fake or mixed - which is let everyone see it, all sites, and let everyone decide for themselves.

I certainly applaud you all for your willingness to share your information with the masses and the time and effort required to do so.

MrBungle wrote:

AK Wilks wrote:

But in any event, I am glad that almost everyone seems to appreciate what Morf, me and Zam are doing here, whether or not they think the Fairfield letters real, fake or mixed - which is let everyone see it, all sites, and let everyone decide for themselves.

I certainly applaud you all for your willingness to share your information with the masses and the time and effort required to do so.

You know, I have friends on all 3 sites. And we work together sharing info. Yes we may have different view points...but the thing we all
have in common is we want to find out who the Z is. The more we can share some of this info the better. We may be on different sides of
the fence, but in another way we are all on the same team. There is nothing in this site that can't be shared......and I would hope that goes for
the other 2 sites. In a way it's cool, We have Tom's site with most the foundation Z letters and info. We have Mike B's site, and they want to talk facts, and we
have Morfs' site were we can brainstorm and speculate. If we ever find Z, it will be interesting to see if any of us had it right >>grin<< I like
to be a winner....but Will feel like a winner no matter what fact, theory or idea is right. Zo, Go Z TeamZ.

AK Wilks wrote:

..

But in any event, I am glad that almost everyone seems to appreciate what Morf, me and Zam are doing here, whether or not they think the Fairfield letters real, fake or mixed - which is let everyone see it, all sites, and let everyone decide for themselves.

I agree. I believe that the work to solve who Zodiac is or was will involve effort,determination and an open mind. Perhaps it will even involve someone accidently stumbling upon Zodiac's identity.. The more people share information, the more may stumble upon one thing or another..Get ready to stumble..

-Nin

I agree with you, Nin, and I do not think that Z is someone "known" or "on the radar"....so it would be someone accidentally stumbling upon, for example, documents after a relative's death that could end up bringing him to light...