6. The fact is that Kathleen chose the man in the Stine sketch as her abductor and the Zodiac took responsibility.

Did the Zodiac take responsibility or just acknowledge he was accused? I rather think it’s the latter.

6. The fact is that Kathleen chose the man in the Stine sketch as her abductor and the Zodiac took responsibility.

Did the Zodiac take responsibility or just acknowledge he was accused? I rather think it’s the latter.

Are you suggesting that the Zodiac Killer was being sarcastic in his letter?

The actions of the perpetrator, in regards to Kathleen John’s, was not something the Zodiac would have done. So, yes, I believe he was.

The actions of the perpetrator, in regards to Kathleen John’s, was not something the Zodiac would have done.

The same can be said for the Stine murder and the Lake Berryessa murder. Prior to Berryessa, the Zodiac only gunned down couples in parked cars at night. In Berryessa he targeted a couple in the day having a picnic and stabbed them. In the Stine murder he killed a taxi driver (1 person) and robbed him. The Zodiac killer didn’t have one MO. So, your reasoning for rejecting the Johns abduction is unsound. If people are going to dismiss Kathleen Johns’ encounter, then they might as well dismiss Lake Berryessa as a Zodiac case too since the Zodiac never mentioned or took credit for it in his letters.

The actions of the perpetrator, in regards to Kathleen John’s, was not something the Zodiac would have done.

The same can be said for the Stine murder and the Lake Berryessa murder. Prior to Berryessa, the Zodiac only gunned down couples in parked cars at night. In Berryessa he targeted a couple in the day having a picnic and stabbed them. In the Stine murder he killed a taxi driver (1 person) and robbed him. The Zodiac killer didn’t have one MO. So, your reasoning for rejecting the Johns abduction is unsound. If people are going to dismiss Kathleen Johns’ encounter, then they might as well dismiss Lake Berryessa as a Zodiac case too since the Zodiac never mentioned or took credit for it in his letters.

The zodiac had an evolving m.o. that is clear from crime scene to crime scene. Telling a woman there is something wrong with her vehicle to get her to pull over, fing with her tire, and then giving her a ride for an hour or two is not part of the evolution. To say the Zodiac didn’t have one m.o., when m.o.’s evolve, suggests you don’t have a firm grip on what an m.o. is. I would suggest you read up on the subject more. I would discuss the problem with your comment on Lake Berryessa but, if you aren’t clear on m.o.’s, you won’t understand signature.

Telling a woman there is something wrong with her vehicle to get her to pull over, fing with her tire, and then giving her a ride for an hour or two is not part of the evolution.

Question: why is that set of events not part of the evolution? By evolution do you mean of a killer?

If you think that z had an underlying issue with women, then I believe that this fits because the attacks on women became more intimate and personal over time. First shooting them which gave him zero time with them afterwards. Then stabbing them which gave him more time punishing but less personal time. Then creating a ruse to get them in the car giving him some serious one on one time.
Sometimes I think people get to caught up with Zs desire for fame and forget about what could have been the impetus for his killing in the first place.

The Zodiac evolves their MO in a pretty much reactionary learning manner as any other serial offender does. This is when the MO gradually changes. For example, keeping targets inside their cars.

However serial offenders don’t change their MO so significantly that they do something almost completely new. This is what is strange about the Zodiac. The Zodiac did this.

This means the MO is just a means to an end. That the emotional signature is something else. For the Zodiac the emotional signature is in the communications, bragging and taunting of LE and society with puzzles to his identity. That is how we identify the Zodiac. The emotional signature not the MO.

The actions of the perpetrator, in regards to Kathleen John’s, was not something the Zodiac would have done.

The same can be said for the Stine murder and the Lake Berryessa murder. Prior to Berryessa, the Zodiac only gunned down couples in parked cars at night. In Berryessa he targeted a couple in the day having a picnic and stabbed them. In the Stine murder he killed a taxi driver (1 person) and robbed him. The Zodiac killer didn’t have one MO. So, your reasoning for rejecting the Johns abduction is unsound. If people are going to dismiss Kathleen Johns’ encounter, then they might as well dismiss Lake Berryessa as a Zodiac case too since the Zodiac never mentioned or took credit for it in his letters.

The zodiac had an evolving m.o. that is clear from crime scene to crime scene. Telling a woman there is something wrong with her vehicle to get her to pull over, fing with her tire, and then giving her a ride for an hour or two is not part of the evolution. To say the Zodiac didn’t have one m.o., when m.o.’s evolve, suggests you don’t have a firm grip on what an m.o. is. I would suggest you read up on the subject more. I would discuss the problem with your comment on Lake Berryessa but, if you aren’t clear on m.o.’s, you won’t understand signature.

I know what MO is. It’s the pattern of behavior in a criminal. But if you think I am wrong, please enlighten me. Please tell me how going from targeting highschool kids at lovers lanes at night and shooting them fits the MO of killing an adult taxi driver in a robbery.

Telling a woman there is something wrong with her vehicle to get her to pull over, fing with her tire, and then giving her a ride for an hour or two is not part of the evolution.

Question: why is that set of events not part of the evolution? By evolution do you mean of a killer?

If you think that z had an underlying issue with women, then I believe that this fits because the attacks on women became more intimate and personal over time. First shooting them which gave him zero time with them afterwards. Then stabbing them which gave him more time punishing but less personal time. Then creating a ruse to get them in the car giving him some serious one on one time.
Sometimes I think people get to caught up with Zs desire for fame and forget about what could have been the impetus for his killing in the first place.

I’m talking about the changes the zodiac is making from crime scene to crime scene that helps him to complete the crime , escape and avoid capture. There is learning behavior seen from crime scene to crime scene. By the time he gets to Paul Stine, the only successful method to avoid any kind of identification, is to get the victim in a closed environment and point blank shoot the victim in the head. Where does John’s, without taking into consideration she was female, fit in to this? The Zodiac wouldn’t have gone through the trouble of loosening the lug nuts to get her into his car. He would have just walked up to her the first time and shot her in the head.

I removed my post. Not interested in getting into an ugly tit for tat.

The Zodiac evolves their MO in a pretty much reactionary learning manner as any other serial offender does. This is when the MO gradually changes. For example, keeping targets inside their cars.

However serial offenders don’t change their MO so significantly that they do something almost completely new. This is what is strange about the Zodiac. The Zodiac did this.

This means the MO is just a means to an end. That the emotional signature is something else. For the Zodiac the emotional signature is in the communications, bragging and taunting of LE and society with puzzles to his identity. That is how we identify the Zodiac. The emotional signature not the MO.

The items in red:

I think the only time the Zodiac would have significantly changed his m.o. is if you consider the Santa Rosa murders as his.

The items in blue:

I would include the victims in this as well.

Telling a woman there is something wrong with her vehicle to get her to pull over, fing with her tire, and then giving her a ride for an hour or two is not part of the evolution.

Question: why is that set of events not part of the evolution? By evolution do you mean of a killer?

If you think that z had an underlying issue with women, then I believe that this fits because the attacks on women became more intimate and personal over time. First shooting them which gave him zero time with them afterwards. Then stabbing them which gave him more time punishing but less personal time. Then creating a ruse to get them in the car giving him some serious one on one time.
Sometimes I think people get to caught up with Zs desire for fame and forget about what could have been the impetus for his killing in the first place.

I’m talking about the changes the zodiac is making from crime scene to crime scene that helps him to complete the crime , escape and avoid capture. There is learning behavior seen from crime scene to crime scene. By the time he gets to Paul Stine, the only successful method to avoid any kind of identification, is to get the victim in a closed environment and point blank shoot the victim in the head. Where does John’s, without taking into consideration she was female, fit in to this? The Zodiac wouldn’t have gone through the trouble of loosening the lug nuts to get her into his car. He would have just walked up to her the first time and shot her in the head.

I hear what you are saying. But what are your thoughts on this…. doesn’t it seem like the Stine murder is what’s different. The murder that doesn’t fit. Not John’s. Let me explain, first he’s shooting women in the safety of night. It’s quick and very impersonal but fairly safe. Then he stabs a woman during the day, more risk, more personal. Then a John’s like attack is even more personal and even higher risk because the victim gets to actually be with their attacker. The element of risk and the degree of close contact with all his victims seem to increase. Now look at Stine, z actually took a huge step back from LB because 1. His risk has been dramatically reduced by killing in a car and at night, 2. Very impersonal killing ( back to using a gun, single shot from behind), 3. The victim doesn’t include a woman, meaning something has changed.
To me everything about the Stine murder is unique. After Stine everything changed. Stine in my opinion is the anomaly. Not Johns. Why? I have a theory, but what what I see is an overall increase in his crimes becoming more personal and becoming more risky up until Stine. Generally.

We wouldn’t even know Stine was a Zodiac victim unless Zodiac told us.

Yes, selection of victims is part of MO, Soze. So is choice of weapon and the time that crimes are committed. MO is about a criminal’s habits and allows investigators to not only lump murders together but to hone in on potential suspects and profile the suspect. The fact is the Zodiac’s first two crimes were carried out in different ways than Lake Berryessa and the Stine murder. The Stine murder is especially unique since it involved the Zodiac driving with his victim and robbing him. Different MOs were present.

Telling a woman there is something wrong with her vehicle to get her to pull over, fing with her tire, and then giving her a ride for an hour or two is not part of the evolution.

Question: why is that set of events not part of the evolution? By evolution do you mean of a killer?

If you think that z had an underlying issue with women, then I believe that this fits because the attacks on women became more intimate and personal over time. First shooting them which gave him zero time with them afterwards. Then stabbing them which gave him more time punishing but less personal time. Then creating a ruse to get them in the car giving him some serious one on one time.
Sometimes I think people get to caught up with Zs desire for fame and forget about what could have been the impetus for his killing in the first place.

I’m talking about the changes the zodiac is making from crime scene to crime scene that helps him to complete the crime , escape and avoid capture. There is learning behavior seen from crime scene to crime scene. By the time he gets to Paul Stine, the only successful method to avoid any kind of identification, is to get the victim in a closed environment and point blank shoot the victim in the head. Where does John’s, without taking into consideration she was female, fit in to this? The Zodiac wouldn’t have gone through the trouble of loosening the lug nuts to get her into his car. He would have just walked up to her the first time and shot her in the head.

So you believe taking a ride with a cab driver, killing him, and robbing him is an evolving form of one MO? Why wouldn’t the Zodiac have simply selected a different victim if killing Stine became too risky? And how do you know anyway that he needed to ride with the cab driver to avoid identification? Choosing a cab driver, riding with him, and robbing him are outside of the Zodiac’s original MO.