He was certainly creative, but not in the artistic sense.

On the contrary I think Zodiac was quite artistic. If I didn’t know the context of the ciphers I’d think they were some sort of modern art project. He sat and crafted them, and presumably the Halloween card as replaceablehead mentioned. (Which, incidentally, is why I suspect he was some sort of draughtsman used to working with blueprints or other technical documents). An almost unreal prototype for larger than life villains like Hannibal Lecter. And that also explains the costume at Lake Berryessa. A comic book fantasy come to life.

He was certainly creative, but not in the artistic sense.

On the contrary I think Zodiac was quite artistic. If I didn’t know the context of the ciphers I’d think they were some sort of modern art project. He sat and crafted them, and presumably the Halloween card as replaceablehead mentioned. (Which, incidentally, is why I suspect he was some sort of draughtsman used to working with blueprints or other technical documents). An almost unreal prototype for larger than life villains like Hannibal Lecter. And that also explains the costume at Lake Berryessa. A comic book fantasy come to life.

Perhaps, I am not articulating myself well. I mean to say that Zodiac seems to be more concrete and mechanically minded as opposed to abstract thought or outright artistic creativity. He is far more interested in creating codes, diagrams, radians, etc. He didn’t write poems. He didn’t draw pictures. Again, nothing is cut and dried and it’s hard to fit anyone into boxes. It’s just my observation that his creativity is more functional rather than abstract.

This is the very thing about putting people in boxes. We shouldn’t suppose that the two characteristics are mutually exclusive. There seems to be this idea, which has perhaps already had it’s heyday, that people are either "right brain", or "left brain" dominant. Whilst it may be based partly in reality, I think the idea has become too popular, although I’ve noticed it’s popularity has diminished in the last few years. I suppose in my own life I have observed that so called "logical" people, your average geeks and nerds as it were, are often a little more distinct from the average "creative type". But I’m not convinced that this exists outside our own bias.

I would hazard that possessing both traits is a sign of some mental flexibility. Certainly codes require attention to detail, are mathematically precise and appeal to people of that mind set. But this is "The Zodiac", the costume wearing, musical theatre quoting, real world Riddler. He clearly possesses a great deal of creativity.

He didn’t write poems that we know of, but his ciphers plain texts are full of symbolic language. He also created stylized greeting cards, that are a form of abstract art, involving paste ups, collage elements and strange symbolism. His irreverent, almost mocking artistic style is not dissimilar to Dada, or other counter culture art movements of the 20th century. You can even kind of see why people would suspect Gaikowski if you squint hard enough. His creations would seem right at home in art school.

It’s true that some of his early letters had a terse, matter of fact, hard boiled writing style. I don’t think it’s a reach to say that he may have been a little cautious at first. But as time went on and he became bolder, his writing became more and more revealing.

How can you say he never drew? He created his own logo… his own logo… and it’s a good logo. I mean, it’s iconic, one in a million. His name choice is one in a million too. I mean damn, he knocked it out of the park. I don’t want to praise such a despicable individual, it irritates me enormously that he was so successful. He set out to create an iconic legacy and here we are decades later, it’s quite awful really. I can’t see someone achieving this if they were boring, basic, uninteresting, unimaginative, and totally unremarkable. I’m creative and I have trouble coming up with good names for things.

He created a treasure map complete with a Mt. Diablo centerpiece. I’d think I was reading an Enid Blyton novel if it wasn’t so monstrously evil.

His bus bomb diagram is both parts mechanical and artistic. Even the idea of the bus bomb, a bomb that is activated by changes in light, it’s mechanical, but it’s also extremely creative, hyperbolic, outrageous, comical even. He also doodled and scribbled strange symbols many of his creations.

This is a man who took out a needle and thread and created one of the most fear inspiring costumes of all time. No doubt the artists impressions of his get up have colored our collective perception, but the real costume was describe as quite striking by Bryan Hartnell.

There is an interesting mind at work. Is it an intelligent mind in the strictest sense? We don’t know. But is it a mind that would have stood out from the crowd? Probably.

In other words, what on earth are you on about when you say that he didn’t seem creative?

This is the very thing about putting people in boxes. We shouldn’t suppose that the two characteristics are mutually exclusive. There seems to be this idea, which has perhaps already had it’s heyday, that people are either "right brain", or "left brain" dominant. Whilst it may be based partly in reality, I think the idea has become too popular, although I’ve noticed it’s popularity has diminished in the last few years. I suppose in my own life I have observed that so called "logical" people, your average geeks and nerds as it were, are often a little more distinct from the average "creative type". But I’m not convinced that this exists outside our own bias.

I know. I said this earlier. There is no black and white when it comes to people’s personalities. I suspect that Zodiac was as blurry and complicated as the rest of us. I’m not "putting him in any box".
Otherwise, you’re putting words in my mouth. I never said anything of the sort. Again, I think Zodiac had some artistic creativity and interest in the arts, but I think the preponderance of evidence has him as a very concrete thinker. Creativity can have many different appearances. Drawing a diagram of a bomb is a form of creativity. Writing a poem is creativity. One isn’t any better or worse than the other – just different. Zodiac was more interested in creating codes, diagrams, etc. than he was at writing poetry or drawing elaborate artwork.

He didn’t write poems that we know of, but his ciphers plain texts are full of symbolic language.

You made my point. He wasn’t creative in the poetic or artistic sense but certainly possessed some higher thinking skills to create his codes. Writing a poem and writing a code are both creative acts, but require different thought processes and skills.

How can you say he never drew? He created his own logo… his own logo… and it’s a good logo. I mean, it’s iconic, one in a million. His name choice is one in a million too. I mean damn, he knocked it out of the park. I don’t want to praise such a despicable individual, it irritates me enormously that he was so successful. He set out to create an iconic legacy and here we are decades later, it’s quite awful really. I can’t see someone achieving this if they were boring, basic, uninteresting, unimaginative, and totally unremarkable. I’m creative and I have trouble coming up with good names for things.

I don’t agree that the symbol was "good". It’s a basic crossed circle that any third grader could create. The only reason it is iconic is because of what it represents: a heinous murderer who terrorized an entire region of the country. I don’t think cold-blooded murder is particularly "creative".

His bus bomb diagram is both parts mechanical and artistic. Even the idea of the bus bomb, a bomb that is activated by changes in light, it’s mechanical, but it’s also extremely creative,

Yup. That’s what I’m saying.

Hopefully, I’ve better stated what I mean. There are many kinds of creativity. You can’t brush with broad strokes. My point continues to be that, by and large, Zodiac was a more concrete, practical, utilitarian thinker. He was what psychologists describe as a convergent thinker rather than a divergent one. Now, as I have stated, it’s not simply black and white. I think Zodiac was certainly capable of some abstract thought and artistic creativity. He, like all of us, was a complex guy. But he possessed a creativity that was better expressed in developing ciphers and diagramming bombs rather than writing elaborate poetry and drawing meaningful, sophisticated pictures. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t creative. It just means his creativity wasn’t expressed the same as we commonly understand it.

Getting back to my original point, I don’t think the Zodiac wrote the Desktop poem because based on his later, confirmed writing, it wasn’t his style. It’s not who he was nor how he expressed himself.

The thing that stands out to me about the poem ….. Zodiac appears to have writing talent (if it is him).

When most lay people write poetry, they usually write with rhyming and a meter like iambic pentameter. The common person sees that as the way to write poetry.

The CJB poem is free verse and it works pretty well, considering it’s a first draft.

If Zodiac writes sophisticated codes and decent, sophisticated poetry, it really limits the number of candidates.

Frederic Steven manalli ticks all them boxes nick

And some others. And whenever we learn something new about Manalli, it always seems to point in the Z direction.

They’re not unsophisticated. The precise degree of sophistication has a lot to do with the yard stick we use to measure it. Perhaps it should be put to a poll, but I’ve noticed that an awful lot of forum members default reaction to the Zodiacs ciphers and to a lesser degree this poem, is to view them as relatively sophisticated. So this opinion would seem, at least superficially, unpopular. Also consider that most people would be formulating their opinion on an estimation of their own abilities. If the majority are therefore at least a little impressed, it would suggest, at least in the roughest possible sense, that the Zodiac was at least good enough to impress most people.

I’m not saying the writer of this poem is Baudelaire, but to most jaded adults who’s creative minds have been replaced by the daily concerns of life and menial jobs, this poetry does seem a little beyond what most could muster in their dreary little lives. Oh sure, when I was in school; when I was in school my mind was filled with new ideas. I suppose this person was at that time in their life and so we can’t say that they possessed any great intellect. But it’s not just about intellect, it’s also about inclination. Certainly a person of even modest intellect could bang this out for a school assignment, but would they have the inclination to outside of that context?

Consider that many people, perhaps even most people have no interest in poetry, or ciphers, or writing beyond a cheap magazine. I’m not suggesting the Zodiac was a genius, I’m not even saying he had an above average IQ, but he probably wasn’t dull. He had some inclination toward creative endeavors, some inclination towards intellectual pursuits. He had some exposure to these ideas as well. Indeed education, exposure and inclination are often far more determining factors than raw intelligence, can intelligence even truly be measured? We are trying to identify someone, we are trying to understand what reputation their personality would have had. It is only necessary that he be perceived as intelligent, or be perceived to have enjoyed such pursuits are poetry, ciphers, musical theatre. If such and individual was known to enjoy such past times it is likely that those that knew them would comment on it. His cousin is not likely to say, "oh well John had a high IQ", more likely "he had some unusual hobbies. He enjoyed old films. He made gadgets". Certainly these past times are not rare, but if you are looking at a POI who spent their life, by all accounts, doing nothing so much as drinking bear and watching football, well maybe they are not the Zodiac.

I agree with a lot of this.

The thing is, we have a sort of control group of criminal poetry to compare it to.

Bonnie Parker, by all accounts a good student, wrote The Ballad of Bonnie and Clyde in a traditional meter and rhyme scheme.

Joe De Angelo, the Golden State Killer, is said to be very smart. He probably wrote Excitement’s Crave, which mostly follows a traditional meter and rhyme scheme.

Bud Kelly, the Riverside PD chief busted for sex crimes, wrote poetry. There’s a link to one of his poems around here somewhere. It’s gaggable and very traditional.

There’s a short story by Ted Kaczynski around here somewhere. It’s awful. He wrote like a robot. Totally left-brained.

I would say the Desktop Poem is better and certainly more …. daring …. in style to any of those. Free verse, no rhymes, seems to know where to insert line breaks, etc.

I agree with Chaucer about Z being a very concrete thinker and that shows in the poem. While I think it shows higher caliber technical sophistication, it doesn’t show much deep insight.

Joe De Angelo, the Golden State Killer, is said to be very smart. He probably wrote Excitement’s Crave, which mostly follows a traditional meter and rhyme scheme.

It’s unconfirmed if DeAngelo actually wrote the "Excitement’s Crave" poem, it may have been a hoaxer, and as DeAngelo doesn’t seem interested in talking about his crimes we’ll probably never know.