The "Editor" certainly looks very much like other Z writing. And both the confession envelope and this envelope have the "ATTN:" marker. The cursive writing on this envelope shares a trait with the cursive writing on the card to the sister of Donna Lass - the capital letters are sometimes done seperate and apart from the rest of the word.
Also, look at the other letters sent in April 67, including this one to the Press Enterprise:http://www.zodiackiller.com/BatesLetter1.html
Then there is one to Mr. Bates and one to the RPD.
All have two stamps, a man in profile - NOT George Washington. (Could be Lincoln).
Why would the writer use two stamps on all the other letters, and one different stamp on this one?
The April 30 envelopes are all done in a childish sloppy printed scrawl. The questioned envelope is in prissy cursive.
There is nothing about the questioned envelope that would lead one to think it was sent with the other April 30 envelopes.
A poster noted this:
"He [Howard Davis] spoke to a librarian at the Press who told him that the paper had received two Bates letters. Surprisingly they had a kept a copy of the envelope, but not the letter."
AK - OK that may be what the librarian told him. But is it true? They lost the letter but kept the envelope? It COULD be the librarian is telling him what she assumed or what others assumed and told her - this decades old envelope must have had another "Bates had to die letter" in it.
And perhaps that is correct. But then why did this "Fourth Letter" never get turned over to the police?
Why did the sender use a child like printed scrawl on three envelopes, and a prissy cursive style on the fourth? Why double stamps on three, and a different single stamp on this one?
"May 1" could be a viable alternative explanation for the postmark issue. But it does seem to look more like a "V", and the two slanted dots seem to basically match the two slanted dots in the Riverside "V".
One thing that struck me - apparently in November of 1966 there were TWO confession letters sent - one to the RPD and one to the "Daily Enterprise". Is that correct?
And in April of 67, we have the letter to Mr. Bates, but again, a letter to RPD and the "Press Enterprise".
The paper had a morning and afternoon edition. But as they were owned by the same company, it seems likely there was one editorial and news department - so no need to send TWO letters to the same paper. In Nov 66 there was ONE letter sent to the paper.
So it seems that in April 67 one letter was sent to the paper. The different postmark, writing, stamp and envelope size all TEND to confirm this. And from what we can see of the month, a probable "V", indicating "NOV", and not "APR".If we believe otherwise, it means that the Riverside Press - Enterprise got TWO "Bates had to die" letters in April 67 - but only turned ONE over to the police. That doesn't make any sense. All the police and journalist reports indicate THREE April 67 letters - one to the police, one to Mr. Bates and one to the Riverside Press - Enterprise.
Also, the "ATTN:" appears on the Nov 66 envelope to the "Daily Enterprise", and it seems there is an "ATTN:" on the front (or back) of the questioned envelope. Most people just write the person or department name at the top of the address. Some people write "To:", some write "Attention"; to abbreviate as "ATTN:" is a somewhat interesting way to do it, and is a possible tie bewteen these envelopes. And certainly the "Editor" writing has very strong similarities to known Z writing.
Mix ups certainly happen, but it is very hard to explain how and why the paper would turn over one letter to the police in April 67, and lose the other one. And it doesn't seem there was any need for the person to send TWO letters to what was the same paper.