- Reaction score
- Trophy Points
I find it interesting that the author seems to have fallen into the same sort of confirmation bias that he originally set out to write about.
I don't know about that, but does it really matter? Either Doerr was Z or he wasn't, so, unless we theorize that Kobek is misrepresenting his findings (due to confirmation bias or otherwise), and/or have the time to double-check said findings, Kobek's mindset is kinda irrelevant, IMO.
Now, consider the horrific story Doerr's daughter recounted in the LA Magazine article. I see only three possibilities:
1) Doerr's daughter made the story up (or told a partly true story) that she accidentally set on the night of Zodiac's first confirmed murders - this is so improbable we can summarily dismiss it, IMO.
2) Doerr's daughter invented a story (or deliberately altered a true story) set on that fateful night, but didn't point said detail out, trusting that Kobek would connect the dots on his own - this is more plausible, but to what end? It would seem out of character with everything else we know about her.
The only other possibility, then, is:
3) The story is true, and Doerr monstroustly assaulted his daughter for supposed promiscuity, causing her to flee their house, on the same night that Z went to a nearby young lover's lane spot and committed his first confirmed (double) murder.
If that is indeed the case, given all the other circumstantial evidence Kobek assembled about Doerr - that he loved ciphers, that he was a hunter who owned lots of weapons, that he wrote numerous letters to newspapers, was a prolific zine contributor who wrote extensively about local and notorious crimes (but never once mentioned Z), that he was in a frigid marriage to a woman who kept a very different schedule, etc., etc. - what are the odds that all this is accurate, but coincidental, and that Doerr and Z were two different men? I'm all for healthy skepticism, but this is too overwhelming, IMO, to not come to the conclusion, unless proven otherwise (and may we always keep open minds, of course, and evaluate every argument/new piece of evidence fairly), that Kobek indeed stumbled onto the truth.
My two cents.