I found an interesting "Y" from the word "BY" in Ted K’s cipher key. I took it and reversed it and overlayed it onto the 340 Z cipher. I’ll bet someone else has found this before – but just in case I am posting it here.

Something else that I personally find interesting is the last few letters of the 340. I see "ZodaikJt" …

ZodiakJt – like a combo of Zodiac and TJK

I’d bet many people have noticed this before but thought that I would post it just on the off chance that the "Y" look alike was new.

Margie

Good observations Jelberg and Margie.

No, Margie, I had never seen that before. You are right, the way Ted writes that Y is almost exactly like how Zodiac did it in his code.

You mentioned maybe seeing part of a name in the 340. Consider the following.

In the 340 cipher, as it was printed in newspapers, the letters to form ‘THEODOR J KACZYNSKI" appear in a somewhat systematic and logical way. Given all the letters in the 340, I am sure you can get hundreds of names. What I note here is the following – IF, and I acknowledge it is a big "IF", Zodiac wanted to hide his real name in the cipher, there is an inherent logic in putting his first name in the first line (or two), his middle name or initial on the middle line, and his last name at the end, at the bottom on the last line or last two lines.

Allowing for backwards letters and filled in "O" ‘s to still stand for the letter, you can get "THEODOR" on the first line; (the middle initial J in the middle of the middle line), KAZINSKI on the last line and allowing for one backwards "K" to stand for a "K", you can get "KAC ZYN SKI" on the last two lines, in a 18 letter section. The name KAC-ZYN-SKI has three syllables of three letters each.

What are the odds that in an 18 character section at the end of the code, all 9 letters of the Kaczynski name would appear by chance?

AKWilkes …. I not only considered what you found … I spent a couple hours trying to see if I could rearrange the cipher lines. I numbered the 17 lines across …. moved the columns into place to show THEODOR in place on the top right row …. cut the cipher below those 2 side lines (I think counting from top down it was cutting under the line and then there were 10 rows on top and 10 on bottom)..then rearranged the bottom section to move KACZINSKI in place on the bottom left. Sound convoluted? I felt convoluted! I was SO hoping that doing this would cause other words or phrases to jump off the page … that would have been SO wonderful! Nothing jumped off the page to me but my child was jumping around the room so I lost focus.
I think there may just be several layers to this cipher just like the layers upon layers to TJK’s own codes/keys.

It’s all infuriating.

enlarge

Discovered by Chris Y and first posted here by The Foreigner – the 1962 Count Marco column mentioning a Red Phantom. Recently posted with observations by Jelberg.

To my knowledge, only twice has Count Marco ever been associated with the words Red Phantom. Once was the Zodiac penned letter of 1974. And the first time was in 1962. Unless this is an incredible coincidence, this perhaps shows that Zodiac may have been a Count Marco fan/critic as early as 1962, and if this is Zodiac calling Count Marco a "Red Phantom" in 1962, 12 years before the Zodiac used Red Phantom in the famous letter to Count Marco, it shows that Zodiac may have lived in the Chicago area in the early 1960’s. Just like Ted Kaczynski. To my knowledge, Ted is the only major Zodiac suspect who lived in the Chicago area in the early 1960’s.

AK:

Some very interesting observation from Kite, who read this column and recognized the writing as having similarities to both known Zodiac writing and known Ted Kaczynski writing.

KITE:

That’s absolutely unbelievable that RED PHANTOM was used previously in a Count Marco column, if I’m not mistaken. Is the term Red Phantom common enough to be found by chance in two articles like that or should we conclude that Zodiac, in all probability, read this 1962 letter? Did Zodiac write the 1962 letter? Did Zodiac write both the ’74 and ’62 letter? Did Zodiac write the ’74 letter and only read the ’62 letter, but was impressed by the reply? Is this not a major avenue of investigation–that Zodiac may have been in the Chicago area in 1962?

Note that in this article, the apparent advice of (seeing psychiatrists). And remember also, Zodiac used the word NASTY in the 1/29/74 note ("I will do something NASTY"), while here in 1962, the writer mentions (Nasty face).

[Ted Kaczynski also used this word in his letter to Ellen, "this nasty affair." – AK Wilks][AK Wilks: And I noted the following from the Ellen poems and letter. Ted makes reference to "fat ass", a term he also used in a letter to a former employer, while Zodiac said the police better get off their "fat asses" if they want to catch him [Zodiac, LA Times letter, 1971].

Ted also uses the word "nasty", which Zodiac used in saying he would do something "nasty" [Zodiac Exorcist Letter 1974].

Ellen poems and letter. Like the Riverside desk writer, Kaczynski pens a poem. Like many Zodiac letters, Kaczynski is sarcastic, mocking and witty. Uses Zodiac terms "fat ass" and "nasty":

[The 1962 Count Marco "Red Phantom" writer said "Instead of sneaking up on women…, you should"…

Ted Kaczynski wrote "Instead of…you should"

Zodiac once wrote(….instead of holding road races with their motorcycles to see who could make the most noise, the car drivers should have…)

KITE:

And look at the context of (sneaking up on women like a red phantom)[Very Zodiac like isn’t it – brings to mind the murder of Cheri Bates and Besty Aardsma – AK] .

An even more direct comparison than the one I used from a Zodiac letter above is:

Instead of encouraging your city to grow, you should realize how lucky you are to live in a small town.

That’s the 1970 Minnesota letter [to the newspaper editor] signed by Ted Kaczynski. Here in 1962:

Instead of sneaking up on women like a red phantom…., you should work openly and usefully…..

AK:

So the 1962 Chicago area writer calling Count Marco a "Red Phantom", the Zodiac AND Ted Kaczynski all used a formulation, rather dictatorial, pedantic and teacher like, "instead of … you should".

Related and interesting: Found by up2something, from the newly released TK letters:

Zodiac Killer: . I wish you a happy Christmas.
Ted Kaczynski: I wish you a happy Easter.

Ted Kaczynski:Meanwhile, I wish you a happy Easter
Zodiac Killer..:Meanwhile, cancel the Count Marco column.

Kite: Written just like that, with a capital M on a sentence-opening "Meanwhile," and then a comma.

Discovered by Chris Y and first posted here by The Foreigner – the 1962 Count Marco column mentioning a Red Phantom. Recently posted with observations by Jelberg.

To my knowledge, only twice has Count Marco ever been associated with the words Red Phantom. Once was the Zodiac penned letter of 1974. And the first time was in 1962. Unless this is an incredible coincidence, this perhaps shows that Zodiac may have been a Count Marco fan/critic as early as 1962, and if this is Zodiac calling Count Marco a "Red Phantom" in 1962, 12 years before the Zodiac used Red Phantom in the famous letter to Count Marco, it shows that Zodiac may have lived in the Chicago area in the early 1960’s. Just like Ted Kaczynski. To my knowledge, Ted is the only major Zodiac suspect who lived in the Chicago area in the early 1960’s.

IMO this ‘conversation’ deals with some sort of secret messages arranging an appointment.

RED PHANTOM (request):
"instead sneaking up on women" – what instead?
"red phantom with black paint" – keyword / identification / ‘secret’ (Red phantom hides itself with black paint so it really can’t be seen at all)
"work openly" – demand to act, do something, come out of the hiding place
"help this free and generous county" – need help, serve me, you will be paid generously

COUNT MARCO (response)
"Red Phantom?!" – keyword /confirmation of identification
"I wear gold" – it’s not free, have the best but requirement to pay
"gold Chinese silk or Italian raw silk" Description of the product? ‘Chinese/Italian? Raw?
"I don’t sneak" – willingness to enter contact/business with Red Phantom, to come out of the hiding place
"as you will be sure to see me" – suggestion to meet…and:
"Chicago on December 5" – date, place..possibly the word ‘silk’ is the hint ‘where’
"personal look at me" – request to come and see
"so be prepared" – bring your part of the deal together with you (and everything will be fine)

If there was such a conversation on Craigslist, one might think they arranged for some illegal business..

QT

This is great research and of tremendous importance. But I have to say I think the conclusion is a case of not being able see the forest from the tree’s. By zooming in on word by word matches we get this beautiful objectivity, since the word for word matches cannot be disputed. Such hard evidence is a refreshing antidote to the endless speculation that surrounds this case.

If we look at the wider context we introduce subjectivity. But I urge everyone to look at the bigger picture. Somethings are subjective, but somethings are more subjective than others. We must examine the evidence, it’s subjective interpretations, and determine which interpretations have merit.

I believe there are readily indifiable aspects of the Zodiacs personality and Ted Kaczynski’s that are not compatible with one another. Ted has made his likes and dislikes clear ad nauseum, he’s quite the curmudgeon and it’s seems plain to me that he would take a very dim view of some of Z’s more childish traits.

When Kaczynski says movies bore him, I see no reason to doubt him, he’s the most painfully literal person I’ve ever read. The Zodaic on the other hand writes like he’s stepped straight out of a cheap 40’s film noir. He’s camp, he’s wry, he’s intellectual, he’s crass, he’s childish. Ted Kaczynski would die of mortal embarrassment at the idea of being associated with such behaviour.

Both of them are didactic, they seem to place value on being perceived as intelligent. Both of them are auto-didactic and would have likely crossed some similar paths in their reading. But the Zodiac is happy to play with both high brow and low brow language, he shifts between them like he’s playing the different characters, the evil count one moment and the mobster the next. Do you think Kaczynski would engage in such antics? They’re clearly both somewhat pretentious, but they have very different views about what makes one appear intelligent.

Kaczynski is absolutely determined to be taken seriously. The Zodiac wished to be feared, but taken seriously? Well it depends what you mean by taken seriously. Dispite his denial Z actually seems fairly ambivalent about being perceived as insane, he even seems to enjoy throwing a little fuel on the fire.

Can you imagine for one moment that Ted Kaczynski would find any amusement in dressing in a campy supervillian outfit? I mean honestly? Ted? His notions of dignity and intellectualism wouldn’t allow such "silly" behavior.

Can you imagine that Ted Kaczynski would want to be a laughing stock by having people wear button badges of him around town. Think about it, a button badge often has inherit humor, or at best it’s certainly not dignified. Z has at least a small capacity for self deprecation, which isn’t at odd’s with his ego, he has the ability not to take himself seriously, or at least so long as he still believes he’s admired and feared, he is happy to be made some fun of, like celebrity who’s OK with being a meme. Ted was born without that ability, he would see no amusement in such badges.

There are many similarities, both of them speak in a manner that reflects some regard for the old way’s. Z does restrain his crass writings more than some killers suggesting that his idea of naughty behavior is that of one who had somewhat conservative parents, he doesn’t swear frequently for example and his torture techniques are supremely comical. But he’s a barrel of laugh’s compared to stuffy old Ted. Some of Zodiacs sentences are a little tortured, but nothing compared to Ted’s. They’re similar in the way (pseudo)intellectuals are often similar, but they have fundamental differences.

Some people might ask, how can you possibly know this? My answer would be from reading their extensive writings and noting the loudest and most obvious personality traits. They’re all traits that almost every person involved in the case has noticed. Others will say that it’s down to increased maturity. But when we look at Kaczynski’s earliest writting he is far more developed in that regard than Z.

To believe Kaczynski is Z we have to believe that he is willing to give up his precious dignity to disguise his personality. That he is somehow able to adopt and use effectively a different sense of humor. That he was able to adopt and demonstrate an appreciation for Musical Theatre and cheesy 40’s films. Oh, "but he did read drama", I hear you cry, yeah maybe, but not that sort. You can’t fake that stuff easily, I could for example pretend to have enthusiasm for cycling, I could mention some of it’s paraphernalia and equipment, but I wouldn’t be able to describe it in a way that would convince actual cycling enthusiasts. As a musical theatre enthusiast and a great lover of all things Charlie Chan, I can tell ya for free, dude ain’t faking it. And who fakes a passion for musical theatre in order to evade capture?

Have you ever noticed how people also tend to become less serious as they get older, even as they mature. When a man is young and idealistic he craves music and influences that are "authentic", or serious and brooding. Teenagers take themselves so seriously when it comes to their tastes in music, even if in hindsight some of them are embarrassing, they still have to be able to take it seriously themselves at the time. As one gets older one becomes less embarrassed by the campy and insincere nature of more mainstream tastes. For Kaczynski to go from Gillbert and Sullivan to Bach is a complete reversal of everything I know about young people and musical tastes. It’s obvious that Z considered Gillbert and Sullivan to be great masters of an art form, I doubt Kaczynski with his much more highbrow tastes would see things the same way.

I cannot see how any reasonable person can read the extensive writings of both individuals and not realise that they are not compatible. I firmly believe Ted Kaczynski would be insulted by the association.

Hi replaceablehead, great analysis as always. I am not an advocate for TK as Zodiac (or any particular suspect) but I have some thoughts about your analysis.

During the time of the Zodiac murders, TK was a young man in his early twenties. Of course not as immature as a teenager, but still younger than the man who became the Unabomber from remote isolation in Montana. Perhaps the Zodiac letters could be a reflection of a younger man, living a relatively normal (though socially awkward) life, engaging in the humor and self-depreciation you might expect from a more socially engaged individual. Trying to be "normal" before embarking on an immensely self-serious political project, during which he may have been in a seriously schizophrenic state.

There are reflections of unseriousness and quaintness in TK’s writings that AK Wilks has highlighted, such as "fat asses" and "rather shabby".

This is nothing but interesting speculation!

Many people used similar words/phrasing (my poi is one of them). Some of these expressions were commonly used back then as can be seen in old comics, books, movies, etc. Some were common among certain geographical areas. These shared words, phrases and handwriting are imo typical of the way kids were taught in school so it is not at all unusual to see these now for those of us of a certain age!

Ted Kaczynski has a larger than life personality, he’s very intelligent and very interesting. His teachers have painted in excruciating detail a remarkable youth, who’s maturity was so outstanding it is vividly remembered. The guy was a miniature adult, he was painfully serious as a youth and encouraged his classmates to follow suit.

As for his letters, I think when he wrote lines like "fat asses", it was out of contempt and genuine frustration, in other words I don’t think he was being funny. As anyone who’s ever set foot on a college campus, or debated a student can attest, no one is more self-serious when it comes to big issues than college aged people.

The Zodiac is so child-like in some ways that he almost appears to have a mental handicap of some kind. He’s not childish in every regard, but in particular ways, ways that have very little to do with age.

As for their language being unremarkable, this is demonstrably untrue, simple analysis of literary corpus shows that both Zodiac and Ted favored old fashion and British leaning language.

Also contemporary investigators and others since have remarked on the profoundly old fashion style of Kaczynski. Such language is found in the written word, those who are bookish have a distinct propensity for such manner and speech. Zodiac mixed his language in a way that suggests he was found of various era’s of pop culture.

To me it’s these contemporary accounts that are interesting, investigators at the time clearly noticed the odd language.

Comic books represent a distinct sub culture and their language is not common in the mainstream.

Films like the Most Dangerous Game and Charlie Chan at Treasure Island are from a very distinct era of Hollywood that saw a shift from the overacting of silent films to the method acting of today. Due to their campy and theatrical nature these films rapidly feel out of mainstream favor. Sure they still made regular appearances on the television due probably to cheap licensing, but they were not to the common tastes of the era.

Don’t take this the wrong way, but I’ve always been a bit disappointed when someones counter argument consists of little more than pointing out that something is speculative, or subjective. The assumption seems to be that all speculation is equal and that only objective evidence carries real weight. There’s a problem with this, it’s the failure to recognise and weigh up empirical evidence. My argument is based on empirical observations made by reading the writings of both individuals and observing Kaczynski’s behaviour in the media, his other writings, the guys prolific. I then take this empirical evidence and compare it to the Zodiacs writing, his behaviour at the crime scene’s. And from there I make the argument that they do not reasonably appear to possess the same personality. It’s fine to point instances of gross generalizations, or wild speculations, but don’t wave "speculative" and "subjective" around like some magic wand. Weigh the quality of the evidence, and weigh the quality of the argument.

The entire problem with this thread is that it tries to use such pure santised objectivism that it becomes obtuse in the way it ignores empirical evidence.

I’ve often heard detectives comment that profiles are only good in hind sight, in other words they’re not accurate enough to catch the killer, but once caught one can see certain similarities in hindsight. Well the thing about Ted is we have caught him, long ago, and so we have in due course sifted through every aspect of his life and personality, we know so much about Ted Kaczynski at this point that we could probably rebuild him as a robot. He isn’t the same guy as the Zodiac, not at any age. I wish he was, oh how it appeals to my imagination, but it’s never going to work, we just know too much about Ted.

TK claims that he destroyed evidence of crimes that could prove embarrassing to him later in his FC persona. I can easily see him having a Z-like "adolescent" criminal phase and growing out of it. As for Z being unlike TK, keep in mind that he introduced significant deception and misdirection in his FC persona as part of his evasion strategy. He could have done the same with the Z persona. I still think TK is the likeliest candidate at this point. Not terribly likely, but more than all the others.

As for Z being unlike TK, keep in mind that he introduced significant deception and misdirection in his FC persona as part.

Good point. Worth bearing in mind that TK is a true genius.

TK claims that he destroyed evidence of crimes that could prove embarrassing to him later in his FC persona. I can easily see him having a Z-like "adolescent" criminal phase and growing out of it. As for Z being unlike TK, keep in mind that he introduced significant deception and misdirection in his FC persona as part of his evasion strategy. He could have done the same with the Z persona. I still think TK is the likeliest candidate at this point. Not terribly likely, but more than all the others.

Ditto!

You know what, now that I’ve had my rant, I actually feel a little more open to the possibility. And I was a little sweeping, TK does have a sense of humor.

This idea of misdirection in their writing, it makes it impossible to say what is them and what is there to mislead. I think though on the whole when you look at FC and you look at TK the subterfuge is actually rather transparent and I’d like to think maybe it’s the same for Z. It’s hard when you’re being spoon feed information by the killer.

I don’t hate the TK is Z theory, I’m just not as convince by the writing comparisons, but think it’s very sensible to look at known killers. One of the biggest hurdles to get over with any suspect is simply, "are they capable of killing?" So it makes total sense to me to look at other serial killers. I think though the often share similar personality traits.

One of the biggest hurdles to get over with any suspect is simply, "are they capable of killing?"

There should be no hurdles. EVERYONE is capable of killing. All it boils down to is time and motive.

Soze