A few random thoughts on this, first, while not Z as we know nothing about him, here is an article I found about three of the other biggies:
http://whiskeygoldmine.com/downtown-bar … s-of-powe/

I will look for more scientific ones this weekend.

Now, onto playing dead and the luck of missing vital organs, etc. Why did he not check for a pulse, especially in the beach killings. Sloppy. And there is a top suspect that had medic training in the military… of course he was also on drugs. And I would have to question the randomness of the stabbing, even I know where to knife someone to kill them.

Z also returned to the car when he heard Mageau scream. Again, shoot wisely (ex. temple?) and check for a pulse.

There is the possibility of prescribed meds, or self medicating. I don’t know who has ever had what recreational drugs in their history, but lets just say my sophomore year of college was interesting in terms of the amount of pot I may have partook in. I really just found it relaxing and fun, never understood "the munchies," and it left me calm, but not without the majority of my faculties.

I don’t think he was all out blitzed when committing the crimes, and if you have never used any drugs, it is impossible to say. People also react differently and with different tolerances. If you look at the Stine killing, the calmness with which Z dealt with the scene and then walking away, even when the police stopped to question him, it makes me wonder… though could also be a psychosis.

If you look at the Stine killing, the calmness with which Z dealt with the scene and then walking away, even when the police stopped to question him, it makes me wonder… though could also be a psychosis.

Yes, his behavior in that regard is indicative of something – I’ve always thought so myself. Walked calmly away at both BRS and LB too. His dialogue with BH is also very interesting.

But we’re not dealing with a normal person here no matter what – so there’s that. He wasn’t of sound mind in a meaningful sense, one way or the other, I’m pretty sure of that.

As for not checking for pulse and failing to kill MM – well, Z interacted very little with his victims in a standard serial killer sense. He was far less interested in his victims than normal serial killers. I don’t think he was too bothered about MM and BH surviving the attacks. He was mainly after something other than the – pardon the expression but it goes with the territory – satisfaction of killing someone.

Locate the victim, attack, get out of there. That was his style – and it’s consistent throughout. Spray them with bullets, stab them multiple times, in all likelihood they’ll die and if not, that works too.

I fully agree that there is something sloppy about it – but I don’t think that has anything to do with whether he was on drugs, drunk, or not. It’s more about the way he regards the people he attacks. They’re extras in his script – for standard serial killers the interaction with the victims is the thing itself, for Z it is not, it’s a necessity of sorts which he seemingly wants over and done with quickly. Theorizing on my part, of course – but there it is.

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.

Which again leaves me in a quandary. What if its his victims’ pattern was part of why he killed when he did. How many people were at a Lover’s Lane on a Tuesday?

How many people were at a Lover’s Lane on a Tuesday?

Less than on a Saturday night, probably – yes.

Chicken and egg problem, though.

A: He killed on weekends because he worked during the week.

B: He killed on weekends because his targets were young lovers.

C: He didn’t target young lovers as such – he just went for easy targets in lonely spots.

…and so forth.

Stine breaks with the young lovers pattern – but conforms to the easy target pattern.

What we know for sure – is that he killed on weekends. Least problematic assumption? He did so because it was convenient. It was pragmatism more than pathology. Perhaps he had a problem with young lovers, perhaps he didn’t, we won’t know for sure until he’s caught.

I can see the chicken and egg problem, but I do think both sides should be considered at this point.

While the MM shooting I could see a lack of interaction with the victims, but the stabbing of CS and BH was much more intimate, for lack of a better term. Of course he was in "costume" for that killing, so leaving a survivor may not have bothered him much. Or maybe was even his preference due to his costume.

I guess it just seems sloppy, even if Z’s motives weren’t about the kill specifically, leaving a witness behind as in MM…. questionable action. But, he also claimed he wore a disguise during all the killings- he claimed a lot of things.

I’m just trying to keep an open mind and try to find the lack of logic (which was his logic) in all the quandaries he left behind.

An interesting post by a former member here (the thread is mainly about Z’s nervousness/trembling at LB but the post touches on what we’re discussing here):

[posted by entropy]

My thought on the topic is that it seems to be a rare glimpse of Zodiac as human being rather than super-villain. He may have appeared calm wiping down Stine’s cab or walking away from the scene but he could also easily have been on the verge of peeing his pants… or under the influence of something. At Lake Berryessa, he knew he was going to have to have much closer interaction with his victims and control them rather than just shoot people and walk or drive away. A lot could go wrong. I think he was probably just flat out nervous about what he planned to do out in open space, the possibility of something going wrong and the fear of getting caught.

My thinking about the more intimate approach at LB is that it’s – like most of what he did – ambiguous.

Using a knife is clearly more intimate than what he’d done until that point, seemingly pointing to some kind of escalation (shooting people execution style wasn’t enough of a kick). But then again what he actually does, doesn’t seem to indicate positively that he enjoys this new intimacy. He "just" stabs them multiple times – and leaves. Just like he had previously shot his victims multiple times – and left. He doesn’t seem to revel in it at all.

Some like to emphasis that he stabbed the female victim more furiously than the male – reading something into this. But then again she struggled – whereas the male did not.

Counterpoints to all points – as per usual. My general take (or one of them anyway) on all his kills is that they’re "types". He tries out ways of killing people he has read about or seen in movies – acting out a scene, as it were.

Whatever the truth may be, there are three distinctly different kinds of attacks (not counting Bates) which makes it very difficult to establish a pattern as far as his possible – say – positive pathology is concerned. Negatively, it’s easier to see the pattern: He does not torture his victims, nor does he display any blatant sadism. He just kills them quickly (or attempts to do so) and leaves. LB is actually even more suggestive in that sense than the other ones: He dresses up (which clearly has some kind of specific meaning to him) and uses a knife, but the actual attack is just as quick as the other ones. Without once alluding to the fact that he is the Zodiac killer, or an executioner, or anything more dramatic than an "escaped convict", he stabs both victim multiple times, hurriedly, and then ups and leaves. Doesn’t savor it, if one can put it like that, at all – in spite of it seemingly being a big deal to him, what with the costume and all.

Anyway – this is a bit off topic, so if anyone wants to discuss the "knife = more intimate?" question and similar topics, we can do so in the appropriate section.

It seems like he was reveling in everything up to the point of stabbing–something in never did before. Leaving quickly would be smart.

I did just reread the entire police report in detail, and while there is a slight variation in how BH said it, he did say when Z was tying up CS he was having issues and admitted to being nervous, at one point when BH asked (official statement) , but he police report just had Z just saying it. http://www.zodiackiller.com/LBReport24.html , page 27 (and a few previous pages) look to be BH’s official statement, though Z then "laughed in a very relaxed manner." Nerves, excitement? Who is to say? Or maybe it was an attempt to get Z to let them go, his statement reads like he is trying to be a brave man and talk Z out of his plans.

But it really doesn’t take long to check a pulse. Z also had a loaded gun with him so if he was nervous, he could have given them each a shot in the head and run off. I can only assume he was afraid someone would hear the shot which is why he elected stabbing? And it does seem he was putting on a bit of a show with his conversation and costume.

I am currently under the belief this was not Z’s first stabbing, but rather CJB, although I reserve the right to change this as we (I) learn more. While it might not seem to fit, besides the handwriting, I have read on a board (I really need to keep track of where to give credit where it is due, I am just so overwhelmed with all the information I keep reading), there are Mikado references in the typed letter. And Z was new, learning, evolving.

What ever happen to entropy? Anyone know?

Soze

It seems like he was reveling in everything up to the point of stabbing–something in never did before. Leaving quickly would be smart.

Yes, possibly. I wouldn’t call it reveling myself, whatever it was. There’s something very awkward about it.

But my main point was about the stabbing, i.e. the act of murder itself. He doesn’t revel in that – just gets it over with and leaves right away. By which I mean that he doesn’t linger to desecrate victims or anything your typical serial killer might do.

What ever happen to entropy? Anyone know?

Soze

He wanted out, I think – came to the conclusion the Z business took up too much of his life, etc.

Perhaps he’ll be back at some point.

Norse:
Bates was a rage murder. Afterward, her killer reveled in the publicity produced. Soon, he discovered he could generate even more publicity by, in a sense, writing his own press releases. After Bates, whether a victim of his died or not, did not particularly concern him. The attack scenes were stages on which he could play horrific roles before a shocked–but always attentive–audience. Any applause? No. But, he was feared!
Dag

Bates was a rage murder. Afterward, her killer reveled in the publicity produced

I really started thinking about what you said there. I know the quintessential serial killer in our minds often likes to kill those who won’t be noticed- i.e. prostitutes, runaways, etc. There are those who like publicity, but typically fall into the spree killer class. I know categorizing people can be dangerous as there are a spectrum within such "disorders."

Bates may have been his rage murder, the reason he killed, and may never have again, though he tends toward the easy to snap persona; as opposed to the once in a lifetime "momentary lapse in sanity" because I find my husband in bed with someone else and kill him. Z’s subsequent evolution is thus fascinating. Hmm, you all give me much to consider!

-m

I am currently under the belief this was not Z’s first stabbing, but rather CJB, although I reserve the right to change this as we (I) learn more.

I like this statement. ^^

When I first really dug into this case via message boards and was offered more and more information (via P.D. reports etc.,–not just someone’s "word") I thought everything was "Zodiac". All the cases and most of the letters–aside from the obvious fakes.

Since then have have done a complete 180 on some things.

One would think it would be the other way around since we get some people who try every which way to convince someone of their theory, but I find the more I learn, the less I think Zodiac did every single thing ever associated with him.

I too reserve the right to change my mind.

I too reserve the right to change my mind.

Its the only real way to go about this. I have hit so much confusion, misinterpretation, and just made up info. I think one also has to be careful with any police report, eye witness, etc. The police took a statement from a witness (who usually aren’t 100% accurate), wrote it in a notebook, and eventually wrote a report.

There was less forensics and appropriate handling of crime scenes. But technology is advancing to even help correct that.

I still don’t have a favorite POI, I became specifically interested after seeing a documentary a couple months ago, where they had a very strong POI. I am not so sure….

If there is concrete evidence contrary to what I may believe, I follow. I listen to others thoughts and arguments. This is one tough case.

Tahoe27, if you want to PM me your POI, I would be curious. The more intelligently people argue, the more intrigued I become. I can take a criticism, but some people on these boards are outright nasty. And as far as I’m concerned, in a nearly 50 year old case, there is nothing that should be overlooked, crazy or not.

-m