I’m always wary of things like ‘profiles’. Not to the point where I would instantly discount them but they seem to be of more benefit when dealing with a subject on which there is little or no extraneous input or information. The problem with Zodiac is that we almost have too much extra data. The ‘interpretation’ of meaning behind his letters being included bothers me. It might be accurate but it could just as easily be complete rubbish.

The issue I have is that it’s not concrete enough and that’s the problem with the ‘stuff’ Zodiac sent. So much of it was, well, random for want of a better description. There are the initial letters detailing the LHR and BRS attacks which were partly to lay claim and partly to control. It’s as if he isn’t confident that the acts themselves are enough to ensure the attention he wants. Craves possibly. So he adds all this ‘stuff’ to make it interesting.

It’s not just that though. He taunts and he does it quite openly in places. It’s those habits that make me wary of ascribing any sort of ‘normal’ attribute to the intention behind the Exorcist letter or the other ’74 mailings. Normal people don’t kill people and then write to the newspapers about it. Zodiac wasn’t normal. The suggestion that those last letters could be symbolic of a change, an end to the Zodiac personae just doesn’t fit. At least not as neatly as it seems to be suggested.

We have four letters in different styles.

One uses the Exorcist as its basis (not a Disney movie btw) and he does the same thing he’s always done. He manipulates through threat to get it printed. He includes a nice little visual puzzle for the ‘bussy’ work and he doesn’t use his name because he shouldn’t have to by now.

The next letter centers around the ‘SLA’ (nice peace loving people) and he uses it to talk about the word ‘kill’.

The Citizen letter, again a film being the focus, a film about a couple who go on a ‘kill rampage’. He decries the nature of it but really? Just like the Belli letter, when viewed in the context of the letters preceding and succeeding it, it seems more like a taunt than anything to be taken literally.

Then we end with the Marco letter. He taunts, insults and signs off with another pseudonym and it’s not the equivalent of a smiley face. There may be something else going on here because in a weird way the attributes he ascribes to Marco are so very easily translatable to himself.

This of course is how I view it and, quite rightly, everyone will have a different take on it or have bits to add or omit. A lot of that I think was to reply to the part of your post where you suggested that those last letters didn’t carry the same anger as some of the others. I think they are a lot more similar to the others than they first appear. There is ‘something’ going on and I don’t think it’s ever simple with Zodiac. Take the why write now and why about ‘that’ film? There is a post on here regarding the newspaper coverage of the film ‘The Exorcist’ written by ‘yours truley’ Paul Avery. Tahoe’s post is below and here’s the thread it’s from.

http://www.zodiackillersite.com/viewtopic.php?f=94&t=1193

Avery, Paul, "Weird Goings-On At the Movies", San Francisco Chronicle, 11 January 1974, 1.
(Pertaining to "The Exorcist")

The 11th Jan 1974 and then on the 29th the Exorcist letter arrives. Pure supposition but you have to wonder was it that Zodiac read that article? or was he actually at that showing and given that his old ‘secret pal’ and press nemesis wrote it. Well, I think the temptation would have been too great to ignore. And perhaps it was. As to why he then continued on with the other letters well, I believe that the Exorcist letter was debated at first so he may have been ‘bumping the thread’ to use a modern parlance and while he was at it providing a response to another perceived challenge by Sherwood Morrill. That he would recognize Z’s writing anywhere. Again just an idea but given that Z was very ‘newspaper’ aware did he decide that he would address that issue as well with multiple styles of writing … as a little game.

Jennings, Duffy. “He’d ‘Recognize’ Zodiac,” San Francisco Chronicle, 14 May 1973, 6.

Thank you Tahoe BTW for putting that newspaper thread together. It really is some piece of work and a great read.

I may have missed something but I that’s my suggestions to some of your questions. Hopefully it’s not too long or complicated but nothing’s simple in this case, not even the replies lol.

EDIT: Just to add. I was having a look at the Exorcist letter and your, and most people’s’ query regarding the purpose of the Mikado reference, well I think it’s just that, it’s a reference and whilst it may be an allusion to the death or ending of the Zodiac personae it doesn’t really make sense in context. He signs off with a murder threat so even if he’s not going to call himself Zodiac … he’s still Zodiac and always will be. He’s a murderer and whether or not he’s actually active at that point is irrelevant. Something nasty means murder. Again I’m pointing this out to further my supposition that he’s still him. I wouldn’t be surprised if the only reason that he chose ‘that’ piece of the Mikado was that he’d already used the most relevant part and that it may have been suggested in the newspapers that he was dead or had killed himself? Or he may have heard it in everyday talk in normal life. He didn’t always reply to direct things "it was not openly stated". Did you think I was dead or had killed myself? Here’s a relevant reference from my past etc etc.

after the stine killing he decided to retire (or to kill anonymously if you believe his threats). without knowing his day-to-day life it’s hard to speculate regarding why he’d start writing again after an absence, but there are two scenarios that are more likely than others – 1) he was incapacitated during the down time, maybe in prison, out of the country, etc or 2) something changed in his life that gave him less time to write.

i believe the murders and letters were done in a period of time when he was away from his normal life, likely traveling for work. that’s why we get everything revolving around the weekends. if he regularly traveled for business then he’d have a lot of free weekends. it’s possible he either stopped having those opportunities or something else in his life changed so that he lost his focus. the recurrence of the letters could have been an amping up of his itch to mess with the police/news/public or could be indicative of a change in his situations (divorce, loss of a job, etc). just my 2 cents.

Thanks for the well-thought-out response, Trav. I’ll try to deal with it in sections:

Take the why write now and why about ‘that’ film? There is a post on here regarding the newspaper coverage of the film ‘The Exorcist’ written by ‘yours truley’ Paul Avery. Tahoe’s post is below and here’s the thread it’s from.

http://www.zodiackillersite.com/viewtopic.php?f=94&t=1193

Avery, Paul, "Weird Goings-On At the Movies", San Francisco Chronicle, 11 January 1974, 1.
(Pertaining to "The Exorcist")

The 11th Jan 1974 and then on the 29th the Exorcist letter arrives. Pure supposition but you have to wonder was it that Zodiac read that article? or was he actually at that showing and given that his old ‘secret pal’ and press nemesis wrote it. Well, I think the temptation would have been too great to ignore. And perhaps it was. As to why he then continued on with the other letters well, I believe that the Exorcist letter was debated at first so he may have been ‘bumping the thread’ to use a modern parlance and while he was at it providing a response to another perceived challenge by Sherwood Morrill. That he would recognize Z’s writing anywhere. Again just an idea but given that Z was very ‘newspaper’ aware did he decide that he would address that issue as well with multiple styles of writing … as a little game.

Jennings, Duffy. “He’d ‘Recognize’ Zodiac,” San Francisco Chronicle, 14 May 1973, 6.

This is an interesting revelation, and perhaps shows that I was over-thinking things a bit. I knew The Exorcist was considered quite frightening when it was released 40+ years ago, but I didn’t realize the reaction had been quite that violent. A bit much for Linda Blair in fright makeup, I think. I guess it could’ve been as simple as Z seeing the reaction to the film and writing the note to remind people that he was truly the scariest thing in the Bay Area, and that everything in the film was a “saterical comidy” compared to what he had actually done. That is actually quite logical, given the huge ego we know Z had.

The fact that the article was written by Paul Avery adds yet another interesting dimension. If Z did indeed read it, and was at the showing, that would certainly give him the impetus to write. It also gives the letter (and those following it) a more taunting tone than I had previously supposed.

Thanks for providing some context, and definite thanks to Tahoe for putting that all together.

I’m always wary of things like ‘profiles’. Not to the point where I would instantly discount them but they seem to be of more benefit when dealing with a subject on which there is little or no extraneous input or information. The problem with Zodiac is that we almost have too much extra data. The ‘interpretation’ of meaning behind his letters being included bothers me. It might be accurate but it could just as easily be complete rubbish.

After I posted this last night, I actually went and found her interview, and realized a couple of things: a) I should have been clear that I was really just posting my thoughts on her profile and on the letter, and not really giving a theory I’m particularly attached to; and b) her conclusions were a bit different than I remembered. She thought that Z returned to normal life after his last letters, or to whatever kind of normal life a man like Z could have. I assume she had Dennis Rader and Gary Ridgway in mind when she said that, since both stopped killing for extended periods of time. She didn’t mention suicide at all. Maybe I’m conflating her thoughts with someone else’s.

Anyway, I’m not convinced by her profile, but I do think it could have merit.

It’s not just that though. He taunts and he does it quite openly in places. It’s those habits that make me wary of ascribing any sort of ‘normal’ attribute to the intention behind the Exorcist letter or the other ’74 mailings. Normal people don’t kill people and then write to the newspapers about it. Zodiac wasn’t normal. The suggestion that those last letters could be symbolic of a change, an end to the Zodiac personae just doesn’t fit. At least not as neatly as it seems to be suggested.

Now, here’s where you might have misunderstood me a bit, and where I probably wasn’t as clear as I should’ve been. When I said “normal” and that the letter had a “casual tone,” I didn’t mean to imply that Z was suddenly a model citizen. I’m pretty sure he was far from that. But Rader and Ridgway were able to function in the everyday world after they stopped killing, and aroused few, if any, suspicions until they were caught. Perhaps calling it the “suicide” of the Zodiac persona was too cut-and-dried. Z wouldn’t suddenly become a normal, everyday citizen. But perhaps he went dormant, trying to blend into the crowd while searching for his next victim. Rader in particular seems to have done that, as he was planning to kill again after a decade-plus hiatus when he was arrested.

Or, there’s another possibility. One that you’ve already suggested:

Then we end with the Marco letter. He taunts, insults and signs off with another pseudonym and it’s not the equivalent of a smiley face. There may be something else going on here because in a weird way the attributes he ascribes to Marco are so very easily translatable to himself.

When I said in my first post that I thought Z might be creating a new character for himself, I was thinking specifically about The Red Phantom. If Z thought that the Zodiac persona had run its course (or become bored with it), it’s possible he was in the process of constructing a new one. Though the Red Phantom might’ve just been a provisional name that Z thought was funny (he was “red with rage” because of Count Marco), the symbol at the bottom of the Exorcist letter could’ve been the symbol for some new character, and Z was continuing to develop it by sending these letters to the Chronicle. Why it fizzled out afterwards is anyone’s guess. Admittedly, this is all very speculative, but it would answer why he doesn’t use the Zodiac name at all.

—–

Anyway, just my thoughts. It could be as simple as you suggested, that Z didn’t use the Zodiac name simply because he didn’t have to anymore. They would know from the writing itself and the blue felt pen that it was him. And I didn’t mean to imply that Z didn’t taunt the police and the Chronicle at all in the Exorcist letter–just that he was more quiet and casual about it than in others (the Stine letter, the bus bomb letter, etc.). Something about the whole thing just doesn’t add up to me, but then it might be because I’m fond of overly elaborate explanations and tend to forget that everything should be subjected to Occam’s razor.

As for the quote from The Mikado, I’m not really sure what it means either. I was just reiterating what’s been suggested before, that it could concern suicide, etc. It is odd, though, that he would choose that song to quote, if it’s just random. Odd, too, that The Exorcist ends with Father Karras committing suicide to save Regan. Though that’s probably coincidence.

I know what you mean about nothing in this case being simple, though. Sorry if my reply to a reply has made things even more complex.

Edit: Just noticed in your last lines that you referenced talk in the newspapers that Z might be dead during the time between letters. I know there was a lot of talk in San Francisco about just what had happened to Z, but does anyone have these articles? If they did speculate about him being dead, that would actually explain a lot.

Trystero, here is the link for the SF Chronicle articles. It’s a pretty darned comprehensive collection.

viewtopic.php?f=94&t=1193

I can’t recall if there are any specific articles that speculate if he was dead. That would make it possibly neater. Or simpler.

I’m musing about this suicide thing and it is purely that. The inclusion of another piece relating to the Mikado may have been a relevant reminder. "it’s me, the Mikado obsessed serial killer". That it pertains to suicide may or may not mean anything. Basically we don’t know. On the subject of endings I do find it interesting. I may be backpedaling somewhat but that’s ok, it tends to happen with this case anyway. You try to think through one aspect rationally and then you have another thought about something that might be the opposite.

There is something about those last letters that seem to draw a line under things. Whether that’s real or even relevant or it’s just how we’re interpreting things I don’t know but hey, that’s what we do. Interpret, suggest, discuss.

Obviously the last letters are just that, the last. So by sheer default they draw a line. We have the ‘suicide’ reference which is a pretty definite ‘final’. There ‘might’ be a closing of the loop aspect here as well. Now, this is purely from my own perspective. It regards the handwriting aspect. When I first looked at the desk poem I couldn’t fail to note that in all of Zodiac’s letters its styling most resembled the Citizen Letter. There are of course other similarities spread throughout the letters but the Citizen letter seems to contain the biggest ‘grouping’ of them. There is also the ‘K’ in the SLA letter. The only place that style of ‘K’ appears previously is in the title of the Desk Poem. So, off the top of my head, there’s two aspects of the last set of letters that relate back to what could be considered the first letter. There is of course the subject matter of the poem which, interpretation not withstanding, seems to be in the area of suicide.

I have no idea what any of this could mean or if it means anything but maybe there’s something we can ‘interpret’ from how, or in what context, he uses references to suicide. If he ends with a suicide reference then it’s logical to assume it suggests an ending of sorts but if he also starts with one where does that leave us? If nothing else it may be another indicator as to the authenticity of the desk poem?

Just some thoughts. I tend to reply in that way to posts so I apologize if it appears that I misunderstood what you may have been intimating in parts of your post. I probably wasn’t It was just my own wandering thoughts on the talking points you had supplied. I get what you mean by ‘casual’ so I was just expanding on the subtext of that in relation to the bigger Z picture. Probably lol.

P.S. thanks for the link Deb. I did include that in my post, I think, but I did wonder if it would be noticeable enough amongst all my waffle. I tried to make it red, it didn’t work.

Thanks for the link, Seagull. Found this from March of ’72:

Even though this is nearly two years before the Exorcist letter, it could have stuck in Z’s memory, especially since it specifically asks if he’s dead. And if this speculation was in one area paper, it could easily have been in others. That could indeed explain the reference to The Mikado. Maybe Zodiac was surfacing from the "billowy wave" just to say he was still here with his last letters and then go back under. Certainly simpler than my theories.

And Trav, I did some pretty major waffling myself. I once had a professor tell me my major talent in life was arguing in circles. I guess that’s better than having no talent at all.

The timing (January of 1974) comes precisely in the middle of the Zebra Murders and at the very height of the public fervor they caused. While any number of life changes may have caused Zodiac to have gone to ground by this time, perhaps another series of high-profile Z murders made him feel threatened enough to say hello and remind everyone that, yes, he’s still around and very much a threat (regardless of whether the latter was actually true).

One could look at this letter in another way as well taking into consideration this letter could be a fake.

IF, IF it were a fake, what is the significance of it? If someone faked it, why and why in January of 1974. Any reporters being fired, any cops not keeping up with quota? Just some weirdo?

I think that the Exorcist was getting a lot of buzz, and Zodiac was not, so he decided to capitalize on the Film’s success and write a letter about it.

Given his reference to the Exorcist (and I agree that publicity it got plus the Zebra murders were a factor in him communicating again at this time) I find it hard not to believe he seen some parallel between the film and himself. How deep that went is debatable and interesting. At the very least we can look back at what he wrote to Belli years earlier, when he spoke about not being able to reach out because of this thing inside him and not being able to control it. Had he exorcised his demons? Was Zodiac gone? Is that the suicide he speaks of? It’s also interesting to consider if there was any religious connection/help in him stopping.

One could look at this letter in another way as well taking into consideration this letter could be a fake.

IF, IF it were a fake, what is the significance of it? If someone faked it, why and why in January of 1974. Any reporters being fired, any cops not keeping up with quota? Just some weirdo?

Good question. If it’s a fake, it’s both a good (handwriting wise) and a pretty subtle one (to me, at least, it sounds Zodiac-ish enough without being too Zodiac-ish). And the detail of omitting the symbol and the moniker itself, well – it works. It seems like something Z could have easily done after several years of silence.

Who would have had anything to gain from it? A cop? Well, yes, arguably – but only a cop who would benefit directly from boosting the Z case. We all know who the prime suspect would be – but wouldn’t it be better, once you had the Z writing down, to write a more directly threatening and/or shocking letter?

A reporter or newspaper man (again the suspects are obvious)? Possibly. Arguably the same goes for them, though. "Zodiac is back and threatens to kill the president" makes for a better headline than "Zodiac is back and talks in riddles about some movie – but he won’t kill anyone if we publish his crazy letter".

A weirdo? Certainly possible too. But then we’re talking about a really weird and subtle weirdo. A garden variety weirdo would have used the symbol and the moniker, in my opinion.

One could look at this letter in another way as well taking into consideration this letter could be a fake.

IF, IF it were a fake, what is the significance of it? If someone faked it, why and why in January of 1974. Any reporters being fired, any cops not keeping up with quota? Just some weirdo?

Good question. If it’s a fake, it’s both a good (handwriting wise) and a pretty subtle one (to me, at least, it sounds Zodiac-ish enough without being too Zodiac-ish). And the detail of omitting the symbol and the moniker itself, well – it works. It seems like something Z could have easily done after several years of silence.

Who would have had anything to gain from it? A cop? Well, yes, arguably – but only a cop who would benefit directly from boosting the Z case. We all know who the prime suspect would be – but wouldn’t it be better, once you had the Z writing down, to write a more directly threatening and/or shocking letter?

A reporter or newspaper man (again the suspects are obvious)? Possibly. Arguably the same goes for them, though. "Zodiac is back and threatens to kill the president" makes for a better headline than "Zodiac is back and talks in riddles about some movie – but he won’t kill anyone if we publish his crazy letter".

A weirdo? Certainly possible too. But then we’re talking about a really weird and subtle weirdo. A garden variety weirdo would have used the symbol and the moniker, in my opinion.

I agree totally with the fact that a imposter would have used either the name or logo and not be that subtle. (Zodiac liked guessing games). I am now curious about the females named in the newspaper article, I wonder if any of them received a Z like note? The one who worked on Telegraph would be easy for Z to find. I also remember reading that the police told the reporters not to put anymore of the Zodiac’s correspondences in their papers, because they felt he was killing just to get front page coverage. The Eureka card was shoved in a drawer for many years, how many other letters were tucked away thinking that they were a hoax?

I lean towards this being fake. It’s seems rather pointless for the real Zodiac to send this letter. And there’s nothing new in it – a Mikado reference after everyone knows about the previous Mikado references because of Avery’s October 1970 newspaper article. If it is the real Zodiac it’s quite a boring letter of no real substance. Plus there’s a palm print on this letter which the real Zodiac seemed to be able to avoid.

We know the police thought it was genuine back in 1974, however we don’t know what they think of it now.

You need to remember though that the stamps Z mostly used were from the same book. The stamp on this letter would have been the last one left, hence the reason why he also put all the other gibbings out of the stamp book on the letter also, can’t see a copycat doing that ?