Then, more personal yet, are the 3-4 letters that seem to have been mailed in April 1967 and arrived in July ???

The three notes (to the paper, the police and Bates’ father respectively) were postmarked April 30th (the six month anniversary of the murder) and presumably arrived either that day or the next (not sure about that, actually – I suppose it would depend on precisely when they were dropped in the mailbox and how often mail was distributed in Riverside back then, but they definitely did not arrive in July).

Interesting points on the whole – much can be said about the nature of these letters, not least IF they were produced by Z. For now I’ll only add that not only did the canonical Z never refer to any of his victims by name – he never communicated with any of the victims’ families at all. Nor did he ever communicate directly with the police – only through the papers.

The canonical Z, as I see him, isn’t very concerned with his victims: He only mentions them to verify that he is the killer and he always refers generically to them, e.g. "those kids", "the boy", "those people", "the woeman", etc.

The canonical Z

I used to consider the letters in that way too. My own feelings on the Riverside connection or Z’s level of involvement aside, he wasn’t exactly the most reliable character when I came to behavior. A bit of a mix n’ match specialist really as the fancy took him. The differences did bother me at first because I wasn’t sure if I should regard them as important. Might save a lot of time chasing shadows. I couldn’t reconcile things like the victim counts or that he refers to the initial ‘canonical’ victims as the beginning of his ‘collecting of slaves’.

I wanted things to be neat and easily identifiable. Yes that’s a Zodiac behavior or that crime fits because he wrote this, that or the other etc etc. I’ve come to believe that it’s probably not an iron clad approach with Zodiac. He changed things. Right throughout his campaign. I mean if he’d covered those Riverside letters with crosshair symbols and called himself the Zodiac then sure it might make it easier but here’s the problem. He did actually return to that anonymous approach for his last letters so those Riverside letters aren’t out of character. Even within them he’s at his ‘mixing things up’ approach with one letter typed and three written.

For myself now I simply feel that he was testing the water with Riverside. In that respect it’s no surprise that he makes no reference to it. It wouldn’t make sense because he wasn’t Zodiac. You could theorize he was leaving that aspect blank until he was sure who he would be. The name space is blank and there’s a subtle symbol of sorts on the written letters. Even with the ‘canonical’ letters he doesn’t name himself until the letter of Aug 4th 1969. If he had tried to allude to the Riverside connection himself, those initial communication could have sound like this.

"This is no name and a squiggle, this is crosshair, this is the Zodiac speaking formerly know as just crosshair and provisionally cipher slayer"

From a marketing/branding point of view it’s a miracle he made it to Zodiac. It’s almost like he couldn’t decide. He finally picks a symbol then, it could be argued, was forced into adding a name. Why not include the name from the onset?

So that’s my feeling on it now. He just wasn’t reliable or consistent. The few things that in any other case might be tenuous have become reliable in this case. Inconsistency, handwriting similarities, use of similar misspellings, use of postage and so on. Talking of which.

The three letters where postmarked April 30 1967 which was a Sunday and they were double postaged. If that helps guesstimate the arrival.

The canonical Z, as I see him, isn’t very concerned with his victims: He only mentions them to verify that he is the killer and he always refers generically to them, e.g. "those kids", "the boy", "those people", "the woeman", etc.

Clearly a detachment.

Soze

He did actually return to that anonymous approach for his last letters so those Riverside letters aren’t out of character.

Well…

Exorcist isn’t properly signed, but there is no doubt whatsoever who it’s from – he makes no attempt to conceal his identity.

The final three? It’s one out of two. Either he completely changed his approach: He stopped promoting himself. He stopped making threats and taunts. He even began promoting the "work" of others. This can’t be easily interpreted as him reverting to the Riverside approach either – it’s a different approach altogether, one which breaks completely with much of what he has done previously.

Or: He didn’t write those letters.

Zodiac in Riverside: Tests the water, writes letters, a persona emerges.

Zodiac in December 1968: Kills two kids and writes no letter. There is no continuation (from Riverside) at all. The attack is completely different (less important if Z didn’t kill Bates, but only produced the letters *) and there is no further exploration of the persona in the form of any communication.

Zodiac in July 1969: Writes a three part letter with an enclosed cipher. This letter, to me, is clearly written by the same person who wrote the other letters most people attribute to him during his "golden" era (1969-1971). It’s the same voice speaking, in much the same way, there is no mistaking it – for my money. The same can’t be said about either the Riverside material (Confession is partly Z like, partly not – the notes aren’t Z like at all) or the last three ’74 letters (in which he for all intents and purposes writes as someone else, not as "Zodiac").

He is not consistent – and there is no absolute pattern from which he never deviates. I agree 100% with that. But focusing on that, rather than on the (pretty much) undeniable commonalities which are internally connected, is a bit dangerous for me.

An example (just to illustrate my point, if it can be called such): I’ve always thought it very unlikely that Z had anything to do with Lass. Z never hid his victims. On the contrary, they were left in the open, easy to find – and his post-murder behavior (taking credit) very much indicates that he wanted them to be found. This holds true both for the canonical murders and for Bates, so there’s no discrepancy there.

But given that Z was a mix-and-match kind of guy in general (which he was – I don’t deny it), why shouldn’t Lass be regarded in this light too? Why should we doubt that he kidnapped Johns, for that matter? Why should we deny anything, based on the idea that A or B breaks with the pattern? What pattern? There is no iron clad pattern to begin with. And so forth.

The above is no good – for me. It’s too…relativistic. He was so unpredictable that he could be responsible for anything. Well – no. He wasn’t THAT unpredictable.

* But this raises another question, which touches on precedents and a plausible "development": If he did not kill Bates, what was Z in 1967? Someone who inserted himself into a murder case? Who took credit anonymously for a murder he didn’t commit – and who communicated directly with the victim’s father? Yes. I believe there are several examples of this kind of behavior – so it isn’t impossible at all that he did just that. But are there any examples of serial killers (typical or untypical ones) who started out as imposters of this sort?

Z: 1. Inserts himself into murder case where a young girl is brutally, savagely killed "by knife", writes letters of a seemingly personal (intimate even) nature. 2. Goes on to kill two kids in a detached, execution style manner, using a gun.

The above is no good – for me. It’s too…relativistic. He was so unpredictable that he could be responsible for anything. Well – no. He wasn’t THAT unpredictable.

* But this raises another question, which touches on precedents and a plausible "development": If he did not kill Bates, what was Z in 1967? Someone who inserted himself into a murder case? Who took credit anonymously for a murder he didn’t commit – and who communicated directly with the victim’s father? Yes. I believe there are several examples of this kind of behavior – so it isn’t impossible at all that he did just that. But are there any examples of serial killers (typical or untypical ones) who started out as imposters of this sort?

Z: 1. Inserts himself into murder case where a young girl is brutally, savagely killed "by knife", writes letters of a seemingly personal (intimate even) nature. 2. Goes on to kill two kids in a detached, execution style manner, using a gun.

Not that I’m aware of. That’s in reply to the query if any killers ever started out as imposters. This is the problem with Z though or even just any area of discussion regarding his crimes. It’s like trying to nail down a warped board. You think you’ve got one bit sorted and another part of it pops loose.

If we go on what we know, and has generally been the case, with serial killers … that they kill people then the problem is with the communications or our interpretation of them. We always seem to hit a brick wall if we try to assign any sort of linear logic to Zodiac in that regard. A lot of it isn’t linear and maybe that’s throwing us. It would be nice if he’d went from A – Z on a nice, definable path but he didn’t. Z almost comes across as not knowing his own facts or even what he’s doing. He doesn’t even name himself until the second (or fourth) letter and that’s in response to him being pressed on details about the LHR attack. He initially only makes reference to it almost in passing and even that was 6 months later (sound familiar?). To him it’s old news albeit part of the picture in regards what was to come. Would we even have any details on that attack if he hadn’t been pressed on them?

This approach is echoed in other areas. The Kathleen John’s incident, Riverside even the Stine murder and the LHR attack. Things, that to us seem important are almost mentioned in retrospect by Zodiac.

Sure I picked that woman up and burned her car.
Yeah that was my activity you stumbled on in Riverside.
Oh forgot to mention earlier. The cops saw me the night I killed the taxi driver.
I also killed those other kids last year.

Even this. "To prove that I am the Zodiac, Ask the Vallejo cop about my electric gun sight which I used to start my collecting of slaves". It’s almost like he’s editing and attempting to tidy up/tie in/link his own communications/activity history. In a way that makes sense when you consider overall how adhoc his approach was it’s no surprise that some things needed ‘Edited’.

Fair points, Trav – and I don’t vehemently disagree with any of it.

I guess my stance is this, though: Z may have been unorthodox in many ways for a "serial killer" but in my opinion he wasn’t such a mystery wrapped in an enigma as it may be tempting to think. I think he acted in a manner which it is possible to understand to a degree – and which to a degree (but much less than perfectly) conforms to a pattern.

Now, for all those discrepancies and possibilities which fall outside of this pattern (basically: kill in a strangely impersonal manner, take credit for it, write letters in the aftermath which either tie in with the crimes or other letters, taunt and threaten and try to come across as some sort of bogeyman) I prefer to treat as being of secondary importance. I don’t dismiss them, I just prefer not to base any crucial assumptions on them. Just my strategy, if you will – not saying it’s the only way to look at this.

One particular point: His habit of trying to prove that he’s the killer is there from the beginning of the canonical letters. He provides further details in the "debut of Zodiac" letter, as a direct response, but he makes a point of providing details to prove he was responsible for both LHR and BRS in his first missive too – in fact, this effort constitutes the bulk of the letter itself.

(Sorry, don’t where I read they were received in July, but not important at this point.)

I think I read somewhere on another message board, that one of the two letters (either the typed or the handwritten), was also possibly sent to the RCC library?

As far as his letters seeming vague or a hindsight statement, I wonder about drug use. A couple of the prime suspects where known speed, LSD, and pot users; and probably whatever else was trendy at the time- PCP, cocaine,heroin? This could easily have obscured the facts in his mind, or distort his view of time passage. 6 months to us could be a few long trips to him, or the realization of his behavior may have sent him into a spiral of excessive drug use.

I think a lot of the CJB remaining unsolved falls to the police and shoddy work. They figured it was the ex, and probably didn’t look any farther.

And a change to the less personal murdering styles were just that- less personal to him, so maybe he surmised he was killing happy couples in relationships, something he never had. Though this still confounds me with the Stine murder. Again, more shoddy police work, though he could have been escalating as his time scale between murders increased slightly, and is when typically serial killers can get sloppy, as this crime showed. It was also his only known kill after he called himself Zodiac, in an August 4th letter. Previous to that, his letters were signed with just the circle and cross.

I think drug abuse (drink too, for that matter) could have played a part – certainly.

The question is to what extent. He certainly wasn’t completely out of it when he did the killing – nor when he wrote the letters. They don’t give the impression of being written by someone who is tripping, to put it like that. They’re largely coherent and to the point.

Another thing to consider is his preference for killing on weekends. This is a pattern for the canonical ones – and the most obvious implication is that he was working during the week. Which again suggests that he wasn’t using drugs or drinking to an extent which would have interfered with the latter.

But, yes – I can see some sort of…chemical explanation for some of the things he did nevertheless. You can use both alcohol and drugs without being completely out of it.

"It’s a sign of the Zodiac" would be the answer to Ramona High students who asked what their yearbook’s title, "Aries" meant. If Z were a student at RHS, as I contend he was, he probably asked that question himself, and heard the answer given him repeated to numerous others. Further, the Z-ish squiggle at the bottom of the BATES HAD TO DIE letters began as the symbol for Aries. One has only to extend the vertical thrust of the initial curlicue and reverse it to have the Aries symbol. This, I think, was Z’s intent, but then he quickly realized that the Aries symbol would tie him to Ramona High, which might narrow the search for him. So, he improvised by finishing up with a half-assed "Z".

Nothing critical, but an image I found watching a CJB vid on youtube, from her church. I’m not so sure the image would be easily id’d as Aries, after all, the true meaning of the symbol is "true position", or if you are more astrological- "earth."

I think drug abuse (drink too, for that matter) could have played a part – certainly.

The question is to what extent. He certainly wasn’t completely out of it when he did the killing – nor when he wrote the letters. They don’t give the impression of being written by someone who is tripping, to put it like that. They’re largely coherent and to the point.

Another thing to consider is his preference for killing on weekends. This is a pattern for the canonical ones – and the most obvious implication is that he was working during the week. Which again suggests that he wasn’t using drugs or drinking to an extent which would have interfered with the latter.

But, yes – I can see some sort of…chemical explanation for some of the things he did nevertheless. You can use both alcohol and drugs without being completely out of it.

Could very well be, liquid courage, or powder, or whatever other form anything it came in could prove the reasoning. I do, however, wonder, if he wasn’t a little too far gone in a couple killings- the overkill was due to his poor aim and he left 2 victims alive-Mageau and Hartnell. Makes me wonder how he can claim he was so careful about not leaving fingerprints behind, but instead left survivors. Insinuates to me he was not all there, either due to drugs, alcohol, or psychoses. How much was he not all there? Guess thats what we gotta figure out- who and why the targets were.

You could say that there’s an element of sloppiness there – yes. But there’s an element of coincidence too – Mageau was simply lucky that none of those shots were fatal. Hartnell played dead, so to speak – otherwise I think Z would have stabbed him further, thus increasing the chances of him sharing Shepard’s fate. Plus, if Z had hit him half an inch further left or right with just one of his stabs, his wounds could have easily been fatal just like hers proved to be.

That isn’t to say I think he was necessarily perfectly lucid, as it were, during the attacks. He could have been hopped up on something, but I don’t think the evidence suggests that he was out of control as such. To me it’s largely coincidental that MM and BH survived.

I think the exact opposite. I don’t think Zodiac was on drugs at all. It seems to me someone like him would absolutely want and need all of his wits about him.

I think the exact opposite. I don’t think Zodiac was on drugs at all. It seems to me someone like him would absolutely want and need all of his wits about him.

That makes sense to me. I could see him being on or off prescription psyche meds, which might make him act one way or another

I think the exact opposite. I don’t think Zodiac was on drugs at all. It seems to me someone like him would absolutely want and need all of his wits about him.

I think he certainly had the necessary wits about him, put it like that. And it seems clear to me that he wasn’t stoned or drunk or spaced out for, at least, LHR, BRS and LB: He could have spent a considerable amount of time prior to those attacks just trolling around, waiting for the perfect opportunity to strike – I personally think this was his game and his preferred method. It’s not unthinkable at all – IMO – that he had been trolling the same locations on previous occasions, without coming across suitable targets. So, in short, for that part he certainly had to have his wits about him.

In general, though – that’s different. I don’t think it’s impossible that he did drugs to an extent – or drank quite a bit on occasion. While his letters are coherent and not the work of someone who has lost his wits, I wouldn’t say they’re the work of a perfectly sober mind either.