I never argued anything that remotely resembles Mark Hewitt getting anything right (I haven’t read his book). I am simply saying that Richard Walter, despite being an intelligent man (which I don’t dispute), his conclusion on Zodiac is highly unlikely to be every other ‘accredited profiler’s’ conclusion on Zodiac in the world.

"What is Hewitt’s track record in solving cold cases? Who values his opinion so much that they seek him out for consultation? Yours is a spurious argument". Where did I argue anything in favour of Mark Hewitt, and where did I compare him to Richard Walter, and what element is spurious?

Hi,

This thread is titled "Mark Hewitt’s 3rd Book."

This is what you said,

"The question should be asked Mike is this: If a civilian profiles the Zodiac Killer and ultimately gets everything correct (if captured), is he still ignorant? And if an accredited profiler gets it horrendously wrong should he change profession and become a plumber."

The implication, since this thread is about Hewitt’s Third Book and not any number of other "civilian profilers" and since you directed the question to me, it presumably as comparing Hewitt’s opinion to that of the profiler in my book, which is Walter, especially since I called Hewitt out in this thread. Walter believes that Z was a power obsessed man who killed from a position of power. The only other profile I’ve heard of Z is similar to the one that has been around for fifty years and which was also espoused by Hewitt, Kelleher, Douglas and who knows who else–the "powerless loser compensating for his feelings of inadequacy." So then it is the "powerless" Z of Hewitt, et.al., vs. the "powerful" Z of Walter that is presumably being discussed, unless I am missing something.

That is what my reasoning was. As for the answer to your question, profilers are human. They make mistakes. There are different levels of profilers just like there are different levels of plumbers. Some plumbers do stellar work, some inspire you to call the BBB on them. Walter is a stellar profiler, well above the level of others who have tackled this case. And he says that the profile of Z fits KQ. This was a completely serendipitous happenstance for me because I was not looking to speak to a profiler and, in fact, was skeptical of profiling in general until I met Walter and began to understand it better. I just called the Vidocq Society to see if they would examine the Z case after that phony DNA threw me for a loop in 2002. They told ME I needed to speak to Richard Walter. I had no clue who he was at the time.

I described the Z crime scenes to Walter and he came up with the profile. That profile happened to fit KQ to a tee. However, I did not go out "shopping" for a profiler to use in my book whose profile was sympathetic to my cause. In fact, I didn’t care about a profiler up to that point. But to then have one of the elite profilers in the world say that I was apparently not wrong but the "loser" profile was wrong was admittedly very encouraging and pretty cool.

Could Walter be wrong? Sure. But he said in (I believe) The Murder Room that he has never been wrong when he names a suspect. His track record and status among profilers says he much more likely to be right than wrong. And if all profilers who were ever wrong had to become plumbers, the Washington D.C. Yellow Pages would have been full of new plumbers after the 2002 Sniper case.

Mike

Question for Mike R – why did he tell you that TK would definitely not be the Zodiac?

An author of a book pushing a certain suspect, would never use an accredited profiler whose assessment of that killer didn’t match the story they were selling. Obviously, this is the concept of any suspect-driven book. If I wrote a book promoting Ted Kaczynski as the Zodiac Killer, the last thing I would do is use anything that tends away from my suspect, anymore than I would use an accredited profiler whose profile negated the concept I was pushing.

That’s why I have never read any book about the Zodiac case and have no plans to. I would not know if I could trust the information since every book I know of pushes their own POI and will cause an author to intentionally or subconsciously omit certain facts or hear things the way they want to hear them.

And it’s not that many of the POI in these books don’t make good suspects, but I haven’t come across one yet that makes me say "yep, he’s the Zodiac", I have doubts about all of them, even those not in a book. I do somewhat envy those who think they know or are confident they have the right guy, they have found some sort of closure. For me, it’s frustrating as hell not being able to come to a conclusion.

If I asked Mark Hewitt, or any other author, who has written a book about a suspect, to then compile an equally convincing book promoting their suspect as not being the Zodiac, I am sure an educated and intelligent author could achieve an extremely convincing argument in reverse. Unfortunately, this wouldn’t make for compelling reading, as we would be getting no nearer Zodiac. You may have many intelligent and thoughtful researchers out there, but as a rule, each is utterly convinced they have the right man, and by default, they probably believe everybody else is barking up the wrong tree. The acid test will come, if the Zodiac Killer is eventually identified beyond doubt. Some people will accept they were wrong, whereas others will never believe they were wrong, even if the murderer was caught on film committing the crimes. Somebody may be right, of course. As for Ted Kaczynski, I don’t even consider him a person of interest, anymore than Arthur Leigh Allen.

Richard – briefly, why don’t you even consider TK to be a person of interest? Do you have a particular suspect or POI?

Mike R – what did the profiler tell you were the reasons why he thought TK would definitely not be revealed as the Zodiac?

As for TK thinking of himself as a powerless loser, I don’t believe that is correct. In fact he recorded in his diary that he always thought of himself as superior to all of his classmates and to everyone he met. Is IQ tests and academic performance would reinforce this feeling.

TK was not a loser in any traditional sense of the term. He graduated from Harvard with honors and obtained a PhD from Michigan with honors. He was hired as a professor at University of California Berkeley, and the staff there made it clear to him that he was tenure-track and that they were proud to have them as a professor. He won top prizes in his field, was published and solved mathematical problems that had never been solved before.

Richard – briefly, why don’t you even consider TK to be a person of interest? Do you have a particular suspect or POI?

Mike R – what did the profiler tell you were the reasons why he thought TK would definitely not be revealed as the Zodiac?

As for TK thinking of himself as a powerless loser, I don’t believe that is correct. In fact he recorded in his diary that he always thought of himself as superior to all of his classmates and to everyone he met. Is IQ tests and academic performance would reinforce this feeling.

TK was not a loser in any traditional sense of the term. He graduated from Harvard with honors and obtained a PhD from Michigan with honors. He was hired as a professor at University of California Berkeley, and the staff there made it clear to him that he was tenure-track and that they were proud to have them as a professor. He won top prizes in his field, was published and solved mathematical problems that had never been solved before.

I have read copious material on Kaczynski, but one of the reasons I don’t believe he was Zodiac, is because I believe the blooded fingerprint on the taxicab was the killer’s (backed up by the Robbins kids testimony of their observations of Zodiac’s movements that night). I watched two Mark Hewitt videos from the Napa library where he effectively stated Arthur Leigh Allen was ruled out via fingerprints (ie: the blooded fingerprint), DNA, handwriting etc. When his 3rd book came out naming Kaczynski as the Zodiac, these videos were removed, because if he believed in the fingerprint evidence and he knew Kaczynski could be ruled out via fingerprint evidence, then he had to wipe clean any trace of him advocating the validity of any retrieved fingerprints in the case. This is very telling, from somebody who believed in the blooded prints, to now stating there is no verifiable Zodiac fingerprints available. This change of opinion deliberately manufactured to keep Kaczynski in the frame. In other words, his opinion on the blooded fingerprint only changed for convenience.

If Ted Kaczynski was the Zodiac, then he has an almighty ego. He is never getting out of prison, yet he could once again bathe in the spotlight, again proclaiming he was Zodiac and having years of fun revealing the secrets of the ciphers, letters and cards. He was really happy to converse with Mark Hewitt through correspondence, but this enthusiasm doesn’t extend to admitting he is Zodiac and all the limited benefits and publicity this would entail. This isn’t compelling proof I know, but I just haven’t seen any tangible links to connect Ted Kaczynski and the Bay Area murderer. But I see this through all the high profile suspects ever named. I know you disagree AK, but we all have differing opinions which I respect.

Also, I believe it’s imperative that a person can place their suspect in the region at the times of the attacks. As with other suspects, this is the responsibility of the person promoting the suspect, not the responsibility of the person doubting the suspect to prove he wasn’t there.

I have no suspect or person of interest AK.

Having not read either book on Ted Kaczynski, the question I would like to ask Tom, is how many of the points in Mark Hewitt’s third book are categorically proven to have been directly taken from Doug Oswell’s book?

More than ten, not just from Oswell’s book.

Are you on speaking terms in the reunions or gatherings. Maybe you can get an answer next time?

Hi,

Curiouscat: I suggest that before you make a final decision not to read my book because others didn’t impress you, that you check out my reviews on Amaon and Amazon.co.uk.

AK: Walter did not give me a reason or detailed explanation. He just made the statement. However, I believe the explanation lies in Ted was an anger killer and Zodiac being a power killer. Tow different beasts. and no, I will not debate you about that. Just IMHO. Find a profiler who will discuss Ted’s motives vs. Zodiac and see what they say. I Googled and quickly found a reference to Ted and Anger.

Mike

Hurry up and write your books folks….when he’s caught, there won’t be a pot to piss in.

Except maybe for the one who gets it right.

I’m just gonna wait until the hoopla dies down until I explain how I figured it out.

And no one will believe you then.

Hi,

The thing that all "amateur" (and for that matter professional) profilers have to think about if they believe that Mr. Walter’s profile (as detailed in my book) is wrong is that as he explained the profile itself to me, it checked off many of the traits that I had heard being used to describe Z over the six years I had been studying the case up to that time (2004). Aloof, distant, superior, narcissistic, etc. And the profile actually says that these types of criminals like to let other people know that they had committed their crimes. Or as Walter said that day in December 2004, "The crime does not count unless someone knows about it." In other words, the manner in which Z committed his crimes leads to a profile that predicts his need to boast, since Mr. Walter creates his profile based on how a criminal commits his crime and what he leaves behind at the scene. No need for letters, and in fact the content of the Z letters was not even considered.

The profile therefore encompasses much of what we know about Z and even foreshadows his need to (although on a much grander scale than a petty criminal) boast about the crimes to the public.

So if you are going to try to strike down Walter’s profile by calling Z a "sexual sadist" or a "loser" or some other umbrella profile, you have some work to do in explaining both the traits associated with Z that Walter’s profile does explain, as well as Z’s need to boast in his letters.

BTW, Ms. O’Toole did hit on Z’s need for both power and control. I have to review everything she said but she was closer to Walter’s profile than Hewitt was. But I wonder if she thinks the power and control were "compensatory" in some way. Funny, she is a professional profiler and was close to Walter and Hewitt is a theology student or something and he was 180 degrees off from Walter’s profile.

Mike

I have read many psychological profiles on Zodiac. Even the nine page profile by Kate Riley PHD , who has over 20 yrs experience,she admits that no one can give a perfect profile of Zodiac, until he is caught and interrogated.

She did a profile on Zodiac that seemed better than most I have read. Her profile is in "The Zodiac killer Cover Up", by Lyndon Lafferty.
Dr Riley said Zodiac was motivated by power, envy,and devaluation. I think we can all agree on that?
I have a problem with pro filers who are given information about certain suspects, they study those people and interject those personalities as if they are profiling thee Zodiac.

I am far from a pro filer , but will bet that Zodiac was mistreated by a female , probably his mother or close female relative. Father was absent from the home at an early age, he had lots of run in’s with police. He was "not an upstanding citizen"and had menial jobs that took him to many places in California and other states. He stalked many of his victims, that was his foreplay before his kill. Some were victims of opportunity, others like Darlene and Cheri Jo he planned.