Presuming that LB was perpetrated by the Zodiac, and not an imposter — could it have possibly been an experiment that he chose not to repeat? I agree that wearing the costume seems to have been for the pleasure/benefit of the killer, primarily (and only secondarily for his victims and/or potential witnesses.) If Z was in the early stages of developing his approach and methods, LB could have been an evolution of his character that didn’t really stick. Hartnell seems to indicate that he wasn’t exactly a cool cucumber throughout their conversation.

Presuming that LB was perpetrated by the Zodiac, and not an imposter — could it have possibly been an experiment that he chose not to repeat? I agree that wearing the costume seems to have been for the pleasure/benefit of the killer, primarily (and only secondarily for his victims and/or potential witnesses.) If Z was in the early stages of developing his approach and methods, LB could have been an evolution of his character that didn’t really stick. Hartnell seems to indicate that he wasn’t exactly a cool cucumber throughout their conversation.

That makes sense to me. Some sort of evolution is to be expected, one could say – a way of taking it up a notch, so to speak. The costume may very well have represented that. The method too: Knife = more intimate = possibly a greater thrill.

Perhaps he was staging himself as a more "proper" executioner than he had been thus far (see the Mikado stuff – I believe there is a possibility that Z, at least one some level, did identify with an executioner persona of some kind).

And then, for various possible reasons, it didn’t turn out as expected. Impossible to say precisely what he had hoped for and why it went wrong – could be anything on both counts – but we do know that he failed to kill BH, which would have been a disappointment to him. Perhaps he concluded that "by knife" wasn’t his thing.

And perhaps the above is the reason why he never mentioned LB. He considered it a failure and didn’t feel like bringing it up.

Wouldn’t he have thought of BRS as a failure too though?

I suck with a gun, so I’ll try and knife…I suck with a knife, back to a gun. I don’t know…to me it seems you either like the personal aspect of a knife or not.

Anyone know statistics about serial killers who used both knives and guns?

Wouldn’t he have thought of BRS as a failure too though?

I suck with a gun, so I’ll try and knife…I suck with a knife, back to a gun. I don’t know…to me it seems you either like the personal aspect of a knife or not.

Anyone know statistics about serial killers who used both knives and guns?

One could argue that he went from: Successful attack on couple w/ headshot on male victim via unsuccessful attack on couple w/ no headshot via unsuccessful attack on couple w/knife – to successful attack on male victim w/ headshot (the original success formula).

He realized, basically, that in order to make sure he killed his victim, he needed to shoot them in the head from close range.

No – seriously, I have no idea. His ways are pretty inscrutable to me. One of the few explanations (for his different approaches) which does make some sense to me, is that he was – simply – experimenting all the time. Trying out things he had read about, perhaps, or seen in a movie. BRS involved the new element of calling the cops – and the letter writing, of course. LB was a one-off experiment with knives and hoods. PH was…well, it was very different in terms of details.

Another – very vague – idea I have entertained at times is that the actual killings meant less to him than the letter writing and the general idea of terrorizing his surroundings. How he killed them wasn’t that important to him – which means that he wasn’t compelled to stick to one and the same method, unlike a classic serial killer (whose pathology determines the method – more or less, at least).

The knife, experimental, yes, and extremely insecure, just too personal. For someone who is bitingly shy and socially awkward, the personal interaction even with persons he means to slay could very well arouse feelings of shame and inferiority. A quick gunshot or shots to his victims, on the other hand, may well have given him a more complete sense of power and control since it would not be as likely to stir up any self-perceived social shortcomings.

Knives are usually associated with sexual attacks as well–very different than a quick shoot and leave.

Just seems odd for a serial killer so switch it up like that. I know killers "progress" in a sense, but not like that.

Wouldn’t he have thought of BRS as a failure too though?

I suck with a gun, so I’ll try and knife…I suck with a knife, back to a gun. I don’t know…to me it seems you either like the personal aspect of a knife or not.

Anyone know statistics about serial killers who used both knives and guns?

In the Radford University/FGCU Serial Killer Database, there are a lot of statistics one could slice and dice to get to the core of this. I couldn’t find anything specific to how many serial killers use both a gun and a knife — I did find that of serial killer victims (data from the time span of 1900 to 2014) 41.75% were shot, and 15.19% were stabbed (Aamodt, 2014, p. 14, para. 2, http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/serial killer information center/project description.htm).

The idea of Z as a disorganized killer seems fairly accurate, with the letters serving as his chance to present a more impressive side of himself. His wide range of variance — not a great shot, seemingly nervous with a knife, spotted creeping around earlier at LB, and having to wipe down the cab in PH — causes him to strike me as disorganized vs. organized in his killer persona. Those of you who are studying criminology might have some better insights, though.

Wouldn’t he have thought of BRS as a failure too though?

I suck with a gun, so I’ll try and knife…I suck with a knife, back to a gun. I don’t know…to me it seems you either like the personal aspect of a knife or not.

Anyone know statistics about serial killers who used both knives and guns?

In the Radford University/FGCU Serial Killer Database, there are a lot of statistics one could slice and dice to get to the core of this. I couldn’t find anything specific to how many serial killers use both a gun and a knife — I did find that of serial killer victims (data from the time span of 1900 to 2014) 41.75% were shot, and 15.19% were stabbed (Aamodt, 2014, p. 14, para. 2, http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/serial killer information center/project description.htm).

The idea of Z as a disorganized killer seems fairly accurate, with the letters serving as his chance to present a more impressive side of himself. His wide range of variance — not a great shot, seemingly nervous with a knife, spotted creeping around earlier at LB, and having to wipe down the cab in PH — causes him to strike me as disorganized vs. organized in his killer persona. Those of you who are studying criminology might have some better insights, though.

i agree with your premise that zodiac was disorganized but my differing conclusion is that it’s because the killing wasn’t his main focus, the letters were. we talk a lot about statistics on serial killers like bundy, gein, berkowitz, et al but those were guys who got off on the particulars of the killing (or fetishes with the bodies, stuff like that). what if z killed as a means to draw enough attention to have his writings read by the masses, thus the knife vs gun debate doesn’t really apply and the sloppiness and frankly lack of forethought (why wear a hood a lb, why drive away and come back at brs, etc) are explained simply because he wasn’t that vested in his murder methods. similar to the way the unabomber used the bombs as a means to make his politics known.

this might seem a minor difference to some as far as what difference does motivation make if in both cases you’re still killing people, but i think the motivation in the z killings makes all the difference. if he was killing because he got off on the control or method of killing (like most classic serial killers) then yeah he was oddly sloppy and scattered, but if he was killing because to him that was the easiest way to have his letters published and have people take notice of him, or even the easiest way to make the cops look dumb then the killing was a means to an end and that’s why he didn’t pay much attention to the method. just my 2 cents.

masootz

I agree with your your thoughts on his motivation. Except in his first killings (They were his motivation.He was angry at something). Then later he got off more on "his game" of words and writing.

i agree with your premise that zodiac was disorganized but my differing conclusion is that it’s because the killing wasn’t his main focus, the letters were. we talk a lot about statistics on serial killers like bundy, gein, berkowitz, et al but those were guys who got off on the particulars of the killing (or fetishes with the bodies, stuff like that). what if z killed as a means to draw enough attention to have his writings read by the masses, thus the knife vs gun debate doesn’t really apply and the sloppiness and frankly lack of forethought (why wear a hood a lb, why drive away and come back at brs, etc) are explained simply because he wasn’t that vested in his murder methods. similar to the way the unabomber used the bombs as a means to make his politics known.

this might seem a minor difference to some as far as what difference does motivation make if in both cases you’re still killing people, but i think the motivation in the z killings makes all the difference. if he was killing because he got off on the control or method of killing (like most classic serial killers) then yeah he was oddly sloppy and scattered, but if he was killing because to him that was the easiest way to have his letters published and have people take notice of him, or even the easiest way to make the cops look dumb then the killing was a means to an end and that’s why he didn’t pay much attention to the method. just my 2 cents.

I believe that the notoriety he sought and killing method are mutually exclusive. While gaining attention may have been his primary objective, and while it may explain his willingness to experiment, that doesn’t preclude a method of killing best suited to his personality. It’s reasonable to assume, that is, the method of killing was important to him at the level of his innate psychology if not vis-à-vis his zodiac persona.

Yah…someone can gain attention in many other ways besides killing people. Bottom line, he was a killer and capable of committing murder.

He liked the notoriety it gave him…no doubt. I think it is also obvious he had some sort of beef with the police. It all goes hand in hand. He, imo, did not appear to enjoy killing like some of these other serial killers who truly get-off on it. Zodiac got off on the publicity.

Thanks Murray for the info you provided. I tend to think Zodiac was organized. I think unorganized would have got him caught…but I don’t believe a lot of things attributed to Zodiac were Zodiac.

He, imo, did not appear to enjoy killing like some of these other serial killers who truly get-off on it. Zodiac got off on the publicity.

This suggests that his threat to continue killing but to drop the zodiac persona to avoid being identified with the crimes was an idle one. That is, what would be the reason for him to continue if he didn’t enjoy killing for killing’s sake, but only, or even largely, for the publicity it brought him? It would certainly throw a shade of doubt on the likelihood. Is it your opinion that Stine was his last slaying, or do you believe he committed more, either anonymously or under a different nom de guerre, after Stine?

This suggests that his threat to continue killing but to drop the zodiac persona to avoid being identified with the crimes was an idle one. That is, what would be the reason for him to continue if he didn’t enjoy killing for killing’s sake, but only, or even largely, for the publicity it brought him? It would certainly throw a shade of doubt on the likelihood. Is it your opinion that Stine was his last slaying, or do you believe he committed more, either anonymously or under a different nom de guerre, after Stine?

What you’re asking there is pretty much at the core of the thing, I’d say, in terms of what sort of killer Z actually was.

I have always liked the idea that he was not a run-of-the-mill serial killer. And part of that idea is definitely (at least my own version of it) that he he did not enjoy killing for the sake of killing to a "normal" extent (for someone who killed several innocent people). The notoriety he gained from writing his letters was the main thing, the killing a means to that end – simply put.

If the above is more or less right, I don’t see his – indeed – idle threat to keep on killing anonymously as being out of character. It was practically sheer luck that Z got away with the Stine killing. Once that truth hit home, he may have decided that enough was enough. He realized that staying out of prison (or the gas chamber) was more important to him than playing the Z game to the max.

The missives he sent post Stine aren’t positively linked to any crimes. They’re just him milking the notoriety he had already gained – and possibly something else too, if we count the "unsigned" communications (which may or may not have been recognized as his work, from his viewpoint).

The BIG question is how plausible the character I describe above actually is. He certainly is something else – but then again, much of what we know about the case does point in the direction of a very odd sort of "terrorist" rather than a serial killer in the usual sense.

He, imo, did not appear to enjoy killing like some of these other serial killers who truly get-off on it. Zodiac got off on the publicity.

This suggests that his threat to continue killing but to drop the zodiac persona to avoid being identified with the crimes was an idle one. That is, what would be the reason for him to continue if he didn’t enjoy killing for killing’s sake, but only, or even largely, for the publicity it brought him? It would certainly throw a shade of doubt on the likelihood. Is it your opinion that Stine was his last slaying, or do you believe he committed more, either anonymously or under a different nom de guerre, after Stine?

I think he probably stopped. But, saying he would no longer announce when he killed certainly worked. To this day, people think many, many current crimes are that of the Zodiac killer.

He was able to no longer kill (imo) yet still able to write letters because by then, people were intrigued (for lack of a better word) with the case. He could get his publicity, with innuendo.

If the above is more or less right, I don’t see his – indeed – idle threat to keep on killing anonymously as being out of character. It was practically sheer luck that Z got away with the Stine killing. Once that truth hit home, he may have decided that enough was enough. He realized that staying out of prison (or the gas chamber) was more important to him than playing the Z game to the max.

I get the feeling he was probably very inhibited in his personal life, which at bottom and in the extreme, is a maladaptive, self-destructive form of self-control. This is telling, imo, as such a person is likely to be a slave to, rather than the willing servant of, self-control. I can see his needs not being met, his anger and frustration mounting, and "boom!" It also seems consistent with the letters in which his mockery of the police forms the basis of his own feelings of inadequacy.