I respectfully have to disagree with a bunch of what you wrote. You wrote that Z was 25-28, that’s really locking in a very small age range for him. You wrote he was under 200lbs, Ken Narlow and Napa believed Z was likely over 200lbs. You wrote that Z was highly educated. Based on what?

Don’t take this post as a challenge, just another person’s perspective. It’s certainly good to come up with a profile like this, but not everybody will agree with it

With the multitude of personal assumptions contained in your profile, there’s little doubt that you have consciously (or unconsciously) pre-selected a poi.
Why not just cut to the chase?

So what evidence do you have that supports this profile? You have many specifics, so one would assume you have evidence that backs it up.

I really don’t think we know all that much about the suspect, aside from the estimates on his weight and height(these differ depending on the victims statements). The rest is speculative, Z could be a rich aristocrat for all we know.

I am wondering why you chose the subject title: "The Real Zodiac and not the Myth"

What if the real Zodiac has blue eyes?

If he is ever caught, one could use that title…until then, it’s anyone’s guess.

It’s certainly a very detailed profile.

And an interesting one too in many ways. The problem with it is obvious, however: As long as certain of these assumptions remain unexplained/not backed up by reasoning which leads back to the facts *, well…it just looks like guesswork.

* By which I mean that the assumptions are based on what we know, from the crime scenes, the phone calls, the letters…and so forth. "Based on this and that phrase in this or that letter, I infer that Z was a baker with a marked aversion to men with wooden legs…"

I have no problem with speculation as long as it’s clearly understood that it IS speculation or guesswork or vague feelings of…whatever. The latter can be interesting enough and I’m guilty of simply…musing about the Z case as much as anyone.

But if you make a profile of the man, I would expect every assumption to be backed up with something more or less concrete. If it’s not, it can’t be properly criticized and commented on by others. It has to be falsifiable, to use a philosophical term.

I like it if it’s a profile of an unknown. If it’s a profile of davidfrancis favourite poi it’s potentially slewed. In either case I think it’s a pretty good profile of Z and I like the format it was delivered in. Looking forward to your poi.
Cheers

As someone who is studying to be a profiler, I will say you started off well and then when you hit certain points, and particularly in your narrative area you atop looking solely at facts and science and start adding personal belief or things that are unfounded.

It is a good first draft though.

Good profile design, but disagree with two things
I believe in a higher age group (30 to 40 years) and that he was not and has never been married, because had no way with girls, or did not like them.
Anyway, I’ll wait your suspect !!!
Marcelo

Confident? or arrogant? From the little I admittedly know about the case, I surmise the killer created the zodiac persona to bestow such attention on himself as he would never have merited on his own. It also seems reasonable to me that he suffered from neglect as a child, either real or perceived, and felt a perhaps somewhat just and self-righteous sense of indignation for the under appreciation of his abilities by others. The gap between his real self and entitled self could only be bridged by the creation of an alternate personality that WAS worthy of the attention, hence the Zodiac.

Is there a thread somewhere on what is known about the childhood of the leading pois on this board? This could be very illuminating.

A perceptive post, Valley! Food for thought, indeed.

A perceptive post, Valley! Food for thought, indeed.

Thanks. I think it would be great to explore, granting the difficulties, the early development and formational experiences of each poi in the case. Then compare them to each of their personality profiles drawing careful, studied inferences of cause, effect, and correlation along the way.

Fantastic! Not as severe as what I was led to believe.

Thank you to those who responded in kind, and in their order: Morf13, Talon, Paul_Averly, pittsburgh_phil, Tahoe27, Norse, Mr Iowe, TruthSeeker, Marclean. I value your thoughts and incisiveness, and promise a reply to every single one of your comments.

After all, we are a big happy family who need to be respectful of others.

Beginning in order:

1. Morf13’s comment: “I respectfully have to disagree with a bunch of what you wrote. You wrote that Z was 25-28, that’s really locking in a very small age range for him. You wrote he was under 200lbs, Ken Narlow and Napa believed Z was likely over 200lbs. You wrote that Z was highly educated. Based on what? Don’t take this post as a challenge, just another person’s perspective. It’s certainly good to come up with a profile like this, but not everybody will agree with it.”

Morf13,

In life one thing is certain (besides the IRS and taxes), we agree to disagree. Discussion is part of our very fibre. If we all agreed in the same philosophies, the world would be a boring place and we would still be starting fires by rubbing two sticks together. In boy scouts we earn this caveman like principle, but do not apply it to our everyday life. We developed verbal communication, a characteristic that eventually lead Thomas Edison to invent the first electrical generator in 1831.

You say “I respectfully have to disagree with a bunch of what you wrote. You wrote that Z was 25-28, that’s really locking in a very small age range for him. You wrote he was under 200lbs, Ken Narlow and Napa believed Z was likely over 200lbs”. If you go back to my post on the subject, you will notice that I’ve left room for debate. Although I’ve provided a precise analysis of my Zodiac’s Character Profile, I’ve also informed everyone that, and quoting myself “I can’t distract myself from believing this individual could have had a teacher. I’m not certain, but someone could have taught him the inner secrets of serial killing.” The case is covered in layer upon layer of dried up mud, and we find it extremely difficult to dig a hole. The propositions are varied and, still today after forty nine years, we are unaware of how deep we need to dig to find the Mother lode. We have one man and his posse(Ken Narlow/Napa) giving us a description from details passed on to them by Bryan Hartnell. Bryan claims the individual to be over 6ft tall with a heavy build (200 – 250 pounds), between 28 – 30 years of age. Sure, Bryan was there first hand, saw and felt the Zodiac’s rage firsthand, felt his knife, heard his voice, noticed his demeanour and characteristics, and praise God survived the ordeal, however, what if the Zodiac was “dressed” for the occasion? Remember how Mike Mageau was found to have had a vast array of clothes on so has to increase his build and body size? I assure you that by undertaking such actions you are bound to look a great deal larger and maybe 10 – 15 pounds heavier. If the Zodiac was 190 pounds, and he had “dressed” for the occasion, he would now appear to be between 200 – 205 pounds, putting him in the weight scale that Hartnell, and Narlow and his posse, believed him to be. Mageau himself gives us a completely different description of the individual. Although Mageau does not provide us with a weight characteristic, he goes on to say the individual had a “stocky” build, was between 5ft8in – 5ft9in, in his 20’s to 30’s. So, now we have two different descriptions altogether. Does this mean we had two Zodiac’s roaming at large? Possibly, and something we can’t discount. Could the individual really be using a different “disguise” from murder scene to murder scene? Speaking for myself, I’m 5ft8, 195 pounds of solid beef (stocky), but not fat. Actually, my body fat index is only 13 percent. Now, when I “dress” myself to go hunting, I immediately put on an extra 15 pounds. Do I look different? Hell yeah, you bet! Here’s an experiment for you to undertake. Lie on the floor (like Bryan looking at something from a different perspective/angle), ask a complete stranger to come on over, and without having time to think (due to emotional duress), try and guess his weight and height. How many times will you be correct? Remember, 50 percent will not cut the cloth!

You go on to say “You wrote that Z was highly educated. Based on what?” Simply put experience! For years I have studied the characteristics of serial killers, what makes them tick, their behavioural features, and let me tell you the Zodiac is in a world of his own. This individual has an aura around him that brings a new meaning to intangible qualities. I see an extremely well thought out process by where letters and cards have been manipulated to give us a sense of imbecility. His ability to hide secrets within his correspondence is magnificently contrived. He’s a highly confident, assertive and egotistical individual, who understood that his work would ultimately achieve what he had planned from the start, that being confusion. Words and terms like “consternation,” “deplorable,” “in light of recent events,” “public sensibilities,” are not part of the vocabulary of changelings. However, common words like “cruise,” “front,” forest,” “drowning,” and “dark,” were systematically misspelled. Moreover, 3 ciphers have remained unsolved for close to half-a-century. His choice of cipher symbols portray someone who is well versed in literature and mathematics. His clues to works like the Mikado, and his review of the Exorcist, shows me someone who had a higher degree of understanding. How many serial killers do you know who have created such elaborate and unsolvable cryptographic problems? From my understanding, most individuals are not able to see a high level of ingenuity behind his work. That’s perfectly fine. It’s this uncertainty that makes the world go around and around.

David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) whom I’ve previously exchanged writings with, is a highly intelligent individual. He too created rumbling letters that, at the time, seemed to be the work of a moronic pest, however, his IQ is well over 118. Although of above-average intelligence, he lost interest in learning at an early age and began an infatuation with petty larceny. At one of his murder scenes, Berkowitz left a hand- written letter addressed to a police captain. Riddled with spelling errors, Berkowitz gave them his new name: the Son of Sam. Based on analysis of the letter, psychiatrists thought the shooter might have had paranoid schizophrenia. They were proven wrong! His intelligence eventually shone through the dark clouds that in the end had surrounded both the case and ultimately himself.

Morf13, I hope my reply falls within the rules of forum participation. I don’t wish to overstep my involvement by perhaps leading folks away from what they ultimately believe.
Thank you, and no, I don’t view your post as a challenge, and hope you don’t view mine in the same form.

2. Talon’s comment: “With the multitude of personal assumptions contained in your profile, there’s little doubt that you have consciously (or unconsciously) pre-selected a poi.
Why not just cut to the chase?”

Talon,

In my line of work and with the clues available, I’m able to psychologically create a portrait of the serial killer. It’s not very hard to mentally create a composite sketch of an individual, if some of his descriptions have already been provided, regardless if they are correct or not. To appease your mind the only “assumption” that, to me is out of context, is the Mannerism Characteristic. In it I claim the individual has a “slight mouth twitch when thinking.” I’m at fault here as I forgot to include the “before talking” end of the sentence. I do apologise. Regardless of this little mistake on the part of I, you probably still asking the question – how have I been able to dig this up?

Well, having previously interviewed a number of psychotic sociopaths, in two of them, the characteristic was quite prominent. It means that they are not comfortable with the position they find themselves in or with the answer they are about to give. In other words and unbeknownst to them, subconsciously they are aware they are about to lie, so they project the uncomfortability through a very prominent and ever slight mouth twitch.

The only chase I’m cutting is to try and find a Diamond blade sharp enough to cut through the impenetrable layers of the Zodiac’s bunker complex.

I hope my answer helps you attain a better understanding of my reasoning.

Thank you.

3. Paul_Averly’s comment: “So what evidence do you have that supports this profile? You have many specifics, so one would assume you have evidence that backs it up.”

Paul,

The evidence has been provided by the Zodiac individual and all those who have, over the years, worked on digging up the hole. The letters, cards, taunts, ciphers, phone calls, and murders, allowed me to corroborate the profile I’ve presented. If you read my reply to Talon you might have a better understanding of what I do to earn a few pennies.

I hope this helps.

Thank you.

4. pittsburgh_phil’s comment: “I really don’t think we know all that much about the suspect, aside from the estimates on his weight and height(these differ depending on the victims statements). The rest is speculative, Z could be a rich aristocrat for all we know.”

You are absolutely correct. The Zodiac could have been cut from the same cloth as the Hearst family. The Hearst’s were the media pioneers of the time, so what better way to promote a vast sale of newspapers, as to have a relatives create the letters, cards, murders, ect.. Of course, I’m just “speculating”. Furthermore, the victim’s different statements do allow for a somewhat tangible likelihood of more than one Zodiac being at work. Again, it’s only speculation.

Btw, how the Steelers doing this season?

Thank you.

5. Tahoe27’s comment: “I am wondering why you chose the subject title: "The Real Zodiac and not the Myth". What if the real Zodiac has blue eyes? If he is ever caught, one could use that title…until then, it’s anyone’s guess.

Tahoe27,

Just like the myth of Joan of Arc being burned as a witch (This is not true. She was burned for heresy, because she dressed as a man) has captivated the minds and hearts of many, so does this puzzling title captivate me. The Zodiac(s) is a real story that took place in San Francisco and Riverside, and not a created myth. However, due to personal gain, many pundits have created a veil of mythology around the issue. Every single book that has been published on the case has brought forth a different mythological character, whilst the true assassin(s) still roam at large. Maybe if Caligula had really made his horse a senator, Rome might have stopped the debauchery it was know for.

Thank you.

6. Norse’s comment: “It’s certainly a very detailed profile. And an interesting one too in many ways. The problem with it is obvious, however: As long as certain of these assumptions remain unexplained/not backed up by reasoning which leads back to the facts *, well…it just looks like guesswork. * By which I mean that the assumptions are based on what we know, from the crime scenes, the phone calls, the letters…and so forth. "Based on this and that phrase in this or that letter, I infer that Z was a baker with a marked aversion to men with wooden legs…" I have no problem with speculation as long as it’s clearly understood that it IS speculation or guesswork or vague feelings of…whatever. The latter can be interesting enough and I’m guilty of simply…musing about the Z case as much as anyone. But if you make a profile of the man, I would expect every assumption to be backed up with something more or less concrete. If it’s not, it can’t be properly criticized and commented on by others. It has to be falsifiable, to use a philosophical term.”

Norse,

First and foremost thank you. It’s a very precise reply to my post. Why are you here? What are these 350 or so souls doing here? Why am I here? We all share a common goal and that is to ultimately get to grips with whom he was and what he created. Surely you know the saying that goes something like “all roads lead to Rome”, right? Well, in our own unique way, we travel down different roads with the hope of one day standing in front of the great spectacle known as the Colosseum. Along our way some will fall, get hurt, get pillaged, but the ultimate goal is still to reach Rome. Those who chose perilous roads have a hard journey, whilst those who travel smarter, have an easier ride. What I’m trying to say is that if any of us had positive factual details, the case would have been solved many years ago. Unfortunately, we have to roll the dice and go with the resulting coefficients. There’s not much more we can do. Regardless of our hypotheses or what road we decide to travel, we all have the same question in our mind…Who is the Zodiac?

Zecharia Sitchin was criticised for flawed methodology and mistranslations of ancient texts as well as for incorrect astronomical and scientific claims; however, the same critics can’t explain why there seems to be proof that points to ancient astronauts having visited our planet before. Is their claim, and using your terminology “falsifiable”, when so much points to visits from outer space?

Peace brother, peace.

Thank you.

7. Mr Iowe’s comment: “I like it if it’s a profile of an unknown. If it’s a profile of davidfrancis favourite poi it’s potentially slewed. In either case I think it’s a pretty good profile of Z and I like the format it was delivered in. Looking forward to your poi. Cheers.”

Mr Iowe,

The unknown always allows for mystery in our mind. It’s a profile I’ve created in my mind (due to years of work) of who I believe the Zodiac to be, without having my POI. Thank you for your opinion and I’m glad you enjoyed my profile.

Cheers.

8. TruthSeeker’s comment: “As someone who is studying to be a profiler, I will say you started off well and then when you hit certain points, and particularly in your narrative area you atop looking solely at facts and science and start adding personal belief or things that are unfounded. It is a good first draft though.”

TruthSeeker,

Ah, a rookie, and one that is definitely learning how to follow the immediate principles of criminal profiling. After years of experience a wise man once told me “it’s not the man in the book but the book about the man.” The true story lies therein. Not wanting to interfere with your journey, allow me to give you a helping hand. During your spare time (if you have any) try and read (if you can find it) Walter C. Langer’s “The mind of Adolf Hitler”. You might find that by combining certain levels of scientific factual references, with a touch of personal belief, investigative preliminary conclusions might not be flawed after all. Keep the following in mind whilst you are travelling through your profiling journey – The Zodiac case needs more than common procedural steps for a profile to be generated. If they had thought about this process back in the 60’s, we might not have been here discussing the issue!

Good luck.

9. Marclean’s comment: “Good profile design, but disagree with two things. I believe in a higher age group (30 to 40 years) and that he was not and has never been married, because had no way with girls, or did not like them. Anyway, I’ll wait your suspect!!! Marcelo.”

Marcelo,

Firstly, thank you for the positive comments on the profile design. Go on right ahead and disagree. By doing so, we open ourselves up to open and honest debate. This places a breath of fresh air into a case that seems to be reaching a stalemate. Now, allow me to give you a list of serial killers who have been married, have/had children. (Remember that after committing their heinous crimes they went home to their loving families without them ever suspecting their husband/father was a murderer).
Robert Yates, Jerome Brudos, Gary Ridgeway, Peter Tobin, Russell Williams, John Wayne Gacy, Dennis Rader (BTK killer,) Herb Baumeister, Harvey Carignan, Andrei Chikatilo, etc…
There is no rhyme or reason to serial killing. Any man, women, married, single, divorced, can develop a murdering desire. It’s a precondition that has been with them all along without some of them realising who and what they are until it’s too late. By then they have become fully pledged murdering machines.

Thank you.

…If you read my reply to Talon you might have a better understanding of what I do to earn a few pennies.

Nope. No better understanding.

You say you "exchanged writings with" a serial killer and studied them, but no one knows what it is you do.

Also curious…in your introduction you say that your are "no expert when it comes to the Zodiac", so in your opinion, why do you then feel qualified to profile him? Not that we can’t all throw our ideas out there, you are welcome to, but you seem to be saying you are of higher authority in the field of profiling. If that is the case, and you are not an expert Zodiac researcher, why do you feel your profile is accurate?

You were led to believe your replies would be severe? Interesting. Good to see you jumped right in…one would think you were well versed with this site.