|
Post by Rubislaw32 on Aug 30, 2015 7:25:57 GMT -8
It may sound a bit flippant,but buttons were very cheap,or even free [?].
Buttons were more fashionable,then - particularly with regard to ''pinning your mast'' to a favored politician.
|
|
|
Post by Ricardo on Aug 30, 2015 21:54:16 GMT -8
It may sound a bit flippant,but buttons were very cheap,or even free [?]. Buttons were more fashionable,then - particularly with regard to ''pinning your mast'' to a favored politician. Yes, buttons were fashionable; however, the Zodiac buttons were not available at the time. Who did the Zodiac killer expect to make the Zodiac buttons? As it happened, later someone made the “I Am Not Paul Avery” buttons instead of the Zodiac buttons. Not what the Zodiac killer wished.
|
|
|
Post by Rubislaw32 on Aug 31, 2015 15:10:42 GMT -8
Two journalists happen to see each other at London Heathrow Airport,and one asks the other his intended destination.''I'm off to Ethiopia'',the other replies,''...there's a promising famine in the offing.''.
And so it was,it seems,with the major Newspapers in the San Francisco vicinity,during the ''reign'' of Zodiac.Despite the implications of his coming,it was big and exciting news.
The ''technical''extortion,that Zodiac imposed on the daily journals,didn't really matter to them [?].
San Francisco Chronicle,July 26th,1970 : ''Being that you will not wear some nice [Zodiac] buttons,how about wearing some nasty [Zodiac] buttons.Or any type of [Zodiac] buttons.''.
So,one presumes,Zodiac expected The SF Chronicle to make the buttons [?].
I think the SF Chronicle,once they realized what they had on their hands,were ''up for it'' - all news is good news,and they themselves,were at the heart of attention [?].
I suspect that the ''I Am Not Paul Avery'' buttons emanated from the Chronicle,itself [?].''I am not Paul Avery,don't shoot me,Buster'' - a sort of ''defiance'',with humor,gesture from the distinguished Newspaper [?].
|
|
|
Post by Ricardo on Sept 7, 2015 19:10:24 GMT -8
Two journalists happen to see each other at London Heathrow Airport,and one asks the other his intended destination.''I'm off to Ethiopia'',the other replies,''...there's a promising famine in the offing.''. And so it was,it seems,with the major Newspapers in the San Francisco vicinity,during the ''reign'' of Zodiac.Despite the implications of his coming,it was big and exciting news. The ''technical''extortion,that Zodiac imposed on the daily journals,didn't really matter to them [?]. San Francisco Chronicle,July 26th,1970 : ''Being that you will not wear some nice [Zodiac] buttons,how about wearing some nasty [Zodiac] buttons.Or any type of [Zodiac] buttons.''. So,one presumes,Zodiac expected The SF Chronicle to make the buttons [?]. I think the SF Chronicle,once they realized what they had on their hands,were ''up for it'' - all news is good news,and they themselves,were at the heart of attention [?]. I suspect that the ''I Am Not Paul Avery'' buttons emanated from the Chronicle,itself [?].''I am not Paul Avery,don't shoot me,Buster'' - a sort of ''defiance'',with humor,gesture from the distinguished Newspaper [?]. If the Zodiac killer was intending to kill Paul Avery, I am not understanding how useful the “I Am Not Paul Avery” buttons would have been. I doubt that the Zodiac killer would have any qualms about killing any newspaper reporter, with or without a button. There was even a chance that that the Zodiac killer could have become offended by seeing one of the “I Am Not Paul Avery” buttons.
|
|
|
Post by Rubislaw32 on Sept 8, 2015 11:47:19 GMT -8
Accepted,regarding the Zodiac watch - the watch and The Ford Zodiac are the only two examples of the ''name'' and the ''symbol'' being in tandem [..unless anyone can find more examples [?]...].But really,this is ''mere'' inspiration material [?].
Once it came to Zodiac's request [1970..] that there be Zodiac buttons for people to wear,the Newspapers were not going to be a party to ''celebrating'' his notoriety [?].
What they could do is not accede to his more ''trivial'' requests [?].''I am not Paul Avery'' is in a way,giving Zodiac back,some of his own medicine - defiance [?].It may well have been Mr.Avery's idea,in the first place [?].
The one guy [Avery],not willing to give Zodiac an inch [..apart from the police...],was to an extent,''on his own'',despite The SF Chronicle having ''official'' responsibility for him.
|
|
|
Post by Rubislaw32 on Nov 26, 2015 17:09:59 GMT -8
With reference to ''Killers at Large'',a book by Nigel Cawthorne [Constable & Robinson Ltd 2007] :
''The letters demanded that people in the San Francisco area wear lapel badges with the Zodiac symbol.When they did not,Zodiac threatened Paul Avery,the Chronicle's crime writer who had been investigating the story.Journalists,including Paul Avery,began wearing badges saying ''I am not Paul Avery''.But Avery,who was a licensed private eye and a former war correspondent in Vietnam,also took to carrying a .38 and put in regular practice at a police firing range.''.
So,it does appear that the buttons saying ''I am not Paul Avery'' emanated from the major local Newspapers,if not the SF Chronicle,itself.The message carrying ''solidarity'' among fellow journalists - a message of ''mischievous'' defiance,in the face of a threat from Zodiac [?].
|
|
|
Post by Ricardo on Feb 24, 2016 21:55:12 GMT -8
The “I am not Paul Avery” button would have been ineffective.
If the Zodiac killer already knew who Paul Avery was, then the button would not have made any difference.
If the Zodiac killer did not know who Paul Avery was, then the Zodiac killer could have just killed anyone wearing the button, whether or not it was Paul Avery.
It defeated the purpose that Herb Caen announced that Paul Avery would be wearing the button.
|
|
|
Post by Rubislaw32 on Feb 25, 2016 2:56:19 GMT -8
Indeed Ricardo,your statements are true in an ''absolute'' sense.
From a journalist's point of view,I believe that ''solidarity'' was what was primarily ''on show''.A ''feel good factor'' for them as a supposed ''band of brothers''.What I [...and perhaps WelshChappie [?]] have highlighted is the perception that one or two of the journalists must have had reservations about backing the ''hothead'' Avery,to the hilt [?].
If a war of words had escalated [in print] between Avery and Zodiac,matters could have taken ''further twists'' - for instance Zodiac [literally] head hunting local heroes such as Herb Caen [?].
I believe that the history of the Zodiac case teaches us that Zodiac knew the folly in actually carrying out his threats,with respect to Newspaper individuals.But the ''threat'' of this happening,was beginning to become apparent.
The Newspapers of course,represented a useful ''tool'' for Zodiac,and I believe he didn't forget that,despite his desire to maximize ''terror''.
Also,I think it pertinent to underline Zodiac's priority - to not get caught - so,innocent ''unknowns'' would have always been his targets.Baiting the police,was one thing - but never to target them,either [?].
In short,the whole ''button''phenomenon,was a sideline distraction,that had started with Zodiac's pathetic attempts to gain instant cult status.
SO ironic ! - in light of what all the years proceeding,have bestowed upon him.Hindsight tells us that Zodiac need not have been in any hurry.
|
|
|
Post by Rubislaw32 on Feb 25, 2016 5:55:31 GMT -8
In thinking more about the points raised by you,Ricardo,with regard to the buttons : There will probably never be a definitive answer.
But....what does one [the Press] do when confronted by a request by a murderer/madman,who is holding you to ransom [more killings],if you do not accede to his request [buttons] ?
Well,the Newspapers had already become Zodiac's ''messenger boys'',but naturally felt disinclined to assist him with celebrity status.
In these circumstances,it appears that a decision was made to confuse Zodiac...to at least buy time and see what his reaction would be [?]
There would be buttons...but not of Zodiac's choosing.''I am not Paul Avery'' denotes ''We are all Paul Avery and none of us are Paul Avery'' - which referred to the investigative journalist at the vanguard of the story,Paul Avery.
But one can imagine that not all journalists would be in favor of wearing such a button - particularly if they saw Mr.Avery as a bit of a ''loose cannon''.
In addition,there would be ''disquiet'' over whether this was some elaborate plan by Editors and The Police to ensnare Zodiac [?].So,perhaps both amusement and distrust,in equal measures,among the journalist fraternity [?].
Yet another example of Zodiac creating confusion and unrest,either by fortune,or [unwitting] design [?].
|
|
|
Post by Rubislaw32 on Feb 26, 2016 13:59:33 GMT -8
It would be interesting to hear other's opinions on the whole ''Buttons'' episode.
Despite some reservations over Mr.Avery's conduct,at times,I believe it important to give Mr.Avery great credit in his attempts to expose the man known as ''The Zodiac killer''.
Paul Avery dared to tread,where others often failed to follow - and he displayed a unique determination and application to the task,in hand.
Saluted and respected,always.
|
|