“When I fired the first shot at his head, he leaped backwards at the same time thus spoiling my aim.”
Doesn’t sound as if both targets were equal to him, does it? While shooting ‘his aim’ Darlene more often, too, Mike Mageau was described as ‘the boy’ only.
It clearly shows that it was Z’s aim to kill Darlene, not necessarily the boy.
There is two possibilities to explain his preference over ‘aim’ vs ‘boy’:
A/: Zodiac hated women, therefore wanted to kill them.
B/: He knew Darlene, she indeed was the target of his actions (in this case).
Imo, A/ is secondary to B/. Although not yet committed, Z did a crime against a man (without woman – Paul Stine). Thus, his primary objective was not to kill women in general (eg Green River killer) but he preferred to kill Darlene over Mike.
Therefore, with a 100% probability, Z had picked her out particularly as his (priority) target / aim (B/).
QT
*ZODIACHRONOLOGY*
“When I fired the first shot at his head, he leaped backwards at the same time thus spoiling my aim.”
You don’t, then, just think the intended meaning here is:
”I was aiming at his head, and he moved?”
“This isn’t right! It’s not even wrong!”—Wolfgang Pauli (1900–1958)
@shaqmeister That’s not what he said. He shot at ‘his head’, true. But that led to spoiling his aim – Darlene Ferrin. Because this surprised him in a very unexpected way, he did mention it in the letter.
Lots of potential for discussion but indeed it was important for him to shoot Darlene. There could be two interpretations, ‘aim’ with regard to the process of shooting or ‘aim’ with regard to his attack on Darlene as a person.
According to Sigmund Freud, Z imo made one mistake in his letter – he let the reader subconsciously know the actual aim of his attack. We do not read about ‘firing into the car’ ‘hitting both regardless whom’ etc. but clearly that he wanted to switch out the boy (‘head’) however not had expected that this could spoil his actual aim Darlene. Darlene was a target, true, but even more – she was the aim of his attack. Z didn’t care too much about Mageau – he wanted to kill Darlene.
If he had wanted Mageau to be (definitely) dead, that would have been the case.
QT
*ZODIACHRONOLOGY*
@shaqmeister That’s not what he said.
I would suggest, on the contrary, that is precisely what he said. Whether or not anyone feels the need to bring Freud into an interpretation of what he said is, of course, another matter.
“The boy was originally sitting in the front seat when I began firing. When I fired the first shot at his head, he leaped backwards at the same time thus spoiling my aim. He ended up on the back seat then the floor in the back thrashing [?] very violently with his legs; that’s when I shot him in the knee.”
There is only one subject in this account — “the boy” — and it’s purpose is merely to describe what happened to him.
“This isn’t right! It’s not even wrong!”—Wolfgang Pauli (1900–1958)
I referred to
”I was aiming at his head, and he moved?”
This sentence, containing the word ‘aim’ simply does not exist in his letter. Z never said/wrote that; all I am saying.
Instead, with regard to Mageau, he referred to him as ‘the boy’. Its true he refers to him regarding the attack, however he does so as anonymous as one could be (‘boy’). Opposite, to Darlene, he refers to her as HIS aim – instead of ‘the girl’ or just ‘her’ /’she’.
This discrepancy, at least to me, gives a clear signal that Darlene was indeed a (prioritized) aim of his attack. Such priority given to one of two only seemingly random victims somewhat implies that he had a higher (!) motivation to kill Darlene than to kill Mike. Despite he attacked both, of course. The only reason for such discrepancy might be that he had known her.
She was his aim, not just ‘a girl’. Thoughts.
QT
*ZODIACHRONOLOGY*
I referred to
”I was aiming at his head, and he moved?”
This sentence, containing the word ‘aim’ simply does not exist in his letter. Z never said/wrote that; all I am saying.
Instead, with regard to Mageau, he referred to him as ‘the boy’. Its true he refers to him regarding the attack, however he does so as anonymous as one could be (‘boy’). Opposite, to Darlene, he refers to her as HIS aim – instead of ‘the girl’ or just ‘her’ /’she’.
This discrepancy, at least to me, gives a clear signal that Darlene was indeed a (prioritized) aim of his attack. Such priority given to one of two only seemingly random victims somewhat implies that he had a higher (!) motivation to kill Darlene than to kill Mike. Despite he attacked both, of course. The only reason for such discrepancy might be that he had known her.
She was his aim, not just ‘a girl’. Thoughts.
Nothing further from me. Hopefully, though, this message board will reactivate at some point in the not-too-distant future.
“This isn’t right! It’s not even wrong!”—Wolfgang Pauli (1900–1958)
