|
|
Post by Ricardo on Aug 3, 2015 3:03:58 GMT -8
There was a letter from the Red Phantom printed in the San Francisco Sunday Examiner and Chronicle on January 12, 1969.  For anyone who is interested, here is a link to my report about it: Project MK-ZODIAC The Red Phantom of 1969 mk-zodiac.com/RedPhantom1969.html |
|
|
|
Post by Rubislaw32 on Aug 28, 2015 12:02:18 GMT -8
Very interesting letter,that could well have been sent by Zodiac.
Of course the ''Clucks'' spelling of Clux stands out.Inferring that those white supremacists are ''chicken'' for disguising their faces with a hood [?].
How ironic,given circumstances of Lake Berryessa,just a few months later [?].
Also,that ''[censored]'' is clearly a word that is scatological in nature,and is unlikely to have been delivered by a ''lady''.Count Marco gets his own back by pretending to assume that the letter is from a ''bitchy woman'' [?].
|
|
|
|
Post by Ricardo on Aug 30, 2015 3:59:27 GMT -8
Very interesting letter,that could well have been sent by Zodiac. Of course the ''Clucks'' spelling of Clux stands out.Inferring that those white supremacists are ''chicken'' for disguising their faces with a hood [?]. How ironic,given circumstances of Lake Berryessa,just a few months later [?]. Yes, if it was deliberate, “Clu Clucks Clan” could be a “chicken” joke. |
|
|
|
Post by Ricardo on Aug 30, 2015 4:21:50 GMT -8
Also,that ''[censored]'' is clearly a word that is scatological in nature,and is unlikely to have been delivered by a ''lady''.Count Marco gets his own back by pretending to assume that the letter is from a ''bitchy woman'' [?]. The writer specifically refers to "American" women. Why the distinction? |
|
|
|
Post by Rubislaw32 on Aug 30, 2015 6:30:57 GMT -8
It certainly doesn't seem to be from a woman - the general ''earthy'' vocabulary,apart from the ''punchline'' last word [?].
So,then one wonders about ''American'' women....that ''he'' intended to come across as an outsider [?].I would suggest that he would not hail from Britain/Aus/NZ,since they would not describe their country as ''free''.I am not sure about Canadians,so I still think that the writer was American - but an ''outsider''.....perhaps married to a foreign woman [?].
I presume,though don't know,that the predominant readers of Count Marco were men [?].Old fashion male chauvinism parodied [?].
|
|
|
|
Post by Ricardo on Aug 30, 2015 22:45:05 GMT -8
So,then one wonders about ''American'' women....that ''he'' intended to come across as an outsider [?].I would suggest that he would not hail from Britain/Aus/NZ,since they would not describe their country as ''free''.I am not sure about Canadians,so I still think that the writer was American - but an ''outsider''.....perhaps married to a foreign woman [?]. Here is another idea... Perhaps for some reason the writer is mistakenly presuming that Count Marco is a foreigner who is talking about American women. However, then it doesn’t make sense that a foreigner must belong to the Clu Clucks Clan. |
|
|
|
Post by Ricardo on Aug 30, 2015 23:14:49 GMT -8
I presume,though don't know,that the predominant readers of Count Marco were men [?].Old fashion male chauvinism parodied [?]. Count Marco’s advice column was intended for female readers. Count Marco was popular because of the controversy generated by the outrageous male chauvinism in tandem with the burgeoning women’s liberation movement in the 1960s and 1970s. An example of Count Marco’s advice... “Here’s one of those silly, nasty letters from a reader who thinks she’s put upon by men, especially me.”  |
|
|
|
Post by Rubislaw32 on Aug 31, 2015 13:08:14 GMT -8
Yes Ricardo,I see what you mean,regarding the true nature of Count Marco - he was actually standing up for men's ''rights'' in the moral minefield of gender role
[?].I can see why women were known to slap him in public,though one feels they missed the whole point of his messages,a little [?].
That period [the sixties/seventies] was the first time since Western women had earned ''The Vote'',that there was a movement towards a fairer equality of the sexes.A World War had just happened to get in the way of it coming sooner [?].He was more of a ''moderator'' with humor,I suppose.
Again yes,it is a valid point that the letter writer was assuming that Count Marco was perhaps,a European Aristocrat [?] - slightly out of kilter with mainstream
American values and culture.It's a tricky one for me to judge - I have two American brother-in-laws,with many ''next generation'' of Anglo-American dual nationality - I know sometimes less,sometimes more,of the subtle differences.
The letter writer,I presume,believes that Count Marco is,at least an emigre and resident of USA.So the ''crux'' of the matter could hinge on ''Clu Clux Clan'' [?].Interesting that the writer spells it with ''C's'',rather than ''K's''.More particularly,that KKK and white supremacist movements were more the domain of The Southern States [?].
Perhaps that is where the letter writer originates,himself ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ricardo on Sept 7, 2015 19:07:37 GMT -8
Yes Ricardo,I see what you mean,regarding the true nature of Count Marco - he was actually standing up for men's ''rights'' in the moral minefield of gender role [?].I can see why women were known to slap him in public,though one feels they missed the whole point of his messages,a little [?]. That period [the sixties/seventies] was the first time since Western women had earned ''The Vote'',that there was a movement towards a fairer equality of the sexes.A World War had just happened to get in the way of it coming sooner [?].He was more of a ''moderator'' with humor,I suppose. If the Zodiac killer did not appreciate the humor of Count Marco, then the Zodiac killer could have easily ignored Count Marco’s column. There was no particular reason that we know of for the Zodiac killer to read Count Marco’s column. By using the alternate pseudonym (“the Red Phantom”), it is evident that the Zodiac killer did not want to be identified as the Zodiac killer. This might indicate that there was some type of personal connection between Count Marco and the Zodiac killer. It is possible that Count Marco did something for which the Zodiac killer wanted revenge. |
|
|
|
Post by Rubislaw32 on Sept 8, 2015 12:10:49 GMT -8
As I have mentioned in another section,I believe that the real person was a voracious reader of Newspapers - and ''cover to cover'',as is sometimes described.A particular suspect that I have in mind,buys two newspapers a day,each and every day.
Some interesting insights,Ricardo....as to the ''revenge'' part,it may be that Count Marco came across as politically ''liberal'',despite his unflinching views on gender role [?].Perhaps,Count Marco inferred that ''those folk'' from The Southern States were a bit ''dye in the wool'' [?].
Assuming of course,that is where Zodiac may have originated [!].
|
|
|
|
Post by Rubislaw32 on Sept 9, 2015 13:31:08 GMT -8
I had been thinking more about what you,Ricardo,had postulated about Zodiac's thinking towards Count Marco.
Initially,I believe that Zodiac may have seen a ''kinship'' of minds,with respect to Count Marco.Not necessarily as conspicuous as ''a woman's place is in the home'',but along those lines [?].
Perhaps it was the disappointment for Zodiac,that as he read more of Count Marco,they were not actually that philosophically aligned.And,in addition,that Count Marco was not the European emigre,with an outsiders viewpoint,that Zodiac had imagined.
With the bubble burst,Zodiac elected to threaten Count Marco.....with the use of ''The Red Phantom'' as a demonstration that ''Zodiac'' could be someone else,if ''he'' so wished [?].
|
|
|
|
Post by Rubislaw32 on Sept 12, 2015 2:34:46 GMT -8
On January 29th 1974,The San Francisco Chronicle publishes Zodiac's ''Exorcist'' letter.
On July 1st 1974,columnist for The SF Chronicle,Marc Spinelli a.k.a Count Marco,writes,in an article actually directed at women,believing that they ''own'' their husbands :
''You may posses a thing or an object and you yourself might even be possessed,as in the film ''The Exorcist''.
But you can't possess another person.''
On July 8th 1974,Zodiac's threatening letter to Count Marco is received by the Editor of The SF Chronicle :
''Meanwhile,cancel the Count Marco column.Since the Count can write anonymously,so can I --- ''
Zodiac effectively,put an end to Spinelli's Count Marco columns with the July 8th threatening letter.And since this letter ended a spate of Zodiac correspondences,Zodiac,as it transpires,killed off two personas with one stone - ''his' and Spinelli's.
Did Zodiac simply dislike Count Marco [''red with rage''],out of jealousy of Count Marco's readership following - which clearly outshone Zodiac [?].
|
|
|
|
Post by Rubislaw32 on Sept 12, 2015 4:40:09 GMT -8
The inference of my last post is this :
Count Marco's July 1st 1974 article,though directed at women,over ''ownership'' of their husbands,contained subtext directed at Zodiac.Although can be only substantiated by The SF Chronicle and Law Enforcement at a later date perhaps,Zodiac's July 8th 1974 threatening letter,was actually the third of three threatening letters directed at Count Marco.
It seems that Marc Spinelli's Count Marco July 1st article was the first time that Spinelli had the opportunity of some ''defiance'' pointed in Zodiac's direction.By the July 8th letter from Zodiac [..the one ''we'' know about...],it may well have been established that these ''Red Phantom'' letters were actually from Zodiac.
The SF Chronicle Editor would have been ''watching proceedings'' and,with a third threatening letter from Zodiac [July 8th],put it to Marc Spinelli to ''call it a day''with the Count Marco column,on account that Zodiac was actually ''red with rage'',and might have decided to transform the threat into ''actual bodily harm''.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rubislaw32 on Sept 12, 2015 8:16:53 GMT -8
Perhaps I may be bold enough to offer this thought to members and visitors alike :
Marc Spinelli's ''You may possess a thing or an object and you yourself might even be possessed,as in the film ''The Exorcist''.
But you can't possess another person.''
....put an end to Zodiac's correspondences,though they may have started again at a much later date [1978].
Initially,Zodiac may have thought himself ''victorious'' with his July 8th ''Red Phantom threat'',and its consequence of terminating the
Count Marco column.However,it must have dawned on Zodiac that Handwriting experts had started to find his measure - no matter how much
Zodiac varied his style of writing,the experts could tell the author [?].
So,perhaps by ''sacrifice'',the victor was actually Count Marco ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Integral on Sept 12, 2015 11:15:48 GMT -8
QED !! Well done.
|
|
