I’d advise reading Richard Walter and Richard Keppel’s "Profiling Killers: A Revised Classification Model for Understanding Sexual Murder" for a more thorough grounding on the subject.
http://searchfortruth.info/sites/defaul … ised_0.pdf

Walter specifically classified Zodiac as a "nonsexual power-assertive." This fragment from COLD CASES shows the distinction between sexual and nonsexual PAs.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ABQeB … 22&f=false

When you say that Z was probably not a successful person, you are ignoring some not so dim signposts: He used multiple 9 mm weapons, which are not cheap. He wrote on Monarch sized paper, which is usually the type of stationery wealthy people and successful businessmen use. He killed one victim in Presidio Heights, a very obscure and wealthy neighborhood in SF that one SFPD Inspector said probably 95% of average San Franciscans could not locate on a map. He then described the sounds of the police search meaning that he remained in the area and did not flee. Who would best fit into that neighborhood and be most familiar with it? Someone who belonged there by actually living there. In contrast, you don’t get to know PH by having a relative who lives on Washington St. near Van Ness, about twenty blocks east!

Forget statistics and look at facts. Mr. Walter has written papers on these subtypes and his profile is that Z was a non-sexual, wealthy power-assertive.

Mike

Forget statistics and look at facts. Mr. Walter has written papers on these subtypes and his profile is that Z was a non-sexual, wealthy power-assertive.

Mike

I understand that you like and respect Mr. Walter very very much. You have even said that he is "never wrong." And I am not saying that he is wrong. But his opinions, however professional, cannot be stated as known "facts."

What you are using here is a logical fallacy know as ‘Argument from Authority’ and you use it repeatedly. And you damned well know better. It gets tiring.

It has been suggested that you get you findings together, and write a book. Why not do that? I’m not sure what your end-game is, really. So far as I know, you have no website, have no book planned or in the making, yet you actively promote your theory here.

To what end? It’s really an honest question. I don’t know why you are here.

-glurk

Forget statistics and look at facts. Mr. Walter has written papers on these subtypes and his profile is that Z was a non-sexual, wealthy power-assertive.

Mike

I understand that you like and respect Mr. Walter very very much. You have even said that he is "never wrong." And I am not saying that he is wrong. But his opinions, however professional, cannot be stated as known "facts."

What you are using here is a logical fallacy know as ‘Argument from Authority’ and you use it repeatedly. And you damned well know better. It gets tiring.

It has been suggested that you get you findings together, and write a book. Why not do that? I’m not sure what your end-game is, really. So far as I know, you have no website, have no book planned or in the making, yet you actively promote your theory here.

To what end? It’s really an honest question. I don’t know why you are here.

-glurk

Yes, this.

Hi-

This is a great week for anyone who embraces the wealthy, power-assertive profile of Z by Richard Walter, which seems to explain many of the traits Z exhibited. The apparent demise of Bill Cosby, an alleged power-assertive sex offender, by virtue of his own words in a deposition, proves that these men can be brought down no matter how seemingly insurmountable a task that may be. Z was a very similar type of person according to Mr. Walter except that he was "eight times smarter" than Cosby was. Whoever Z was would appear to be above being Z, so few would suspect him of doing the things that Z did. Wealth and power are the gifts that keep on giving.

If you don’t embrace that profile move along…nothing to see here.

Mike

From what I have read on various sites; including the FBI’s, is that Zodiac (and no I am no profiler) was the thrill seeker type.

The only crime that might fall under "power/control" is Lake Berryessa.

Thrill seekers are serial killers that see outsmarting the law as some sort of amusement. They enjoy attention from the media and they also enjoy being pursued by the police. They can be distinguished from other serial killers because of the fact that they send messages to others and they keep detailed records of their killings. Because of this, it is logical to say that most thrill seekers can be categorized as organized, but at the same time they do not always plan everything out in advance. For that, they are also seen as unorganized killers. Thrills seekers typically use weapons and/or rape their victims before killing them. After that, they hide the victim’s corpse and they move on to their next victim, that is, unless of course they are caught in the act of doing so.

Power and Control serial killers enjoy their victim’s terror, suffering and screaming. These killers tend to be very organized and they usually have a history of childhood abuse, which left them feeling powerless and inadequete as adults. Many of these killers also sexually abuse their victims, but they are not motivated by feelings of lust. To them, rape is simply another form of dominating the victim.

https://sites.google.com/site/psycholog … al-killers

https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publ … der-1#five

–Sorry if I missed it, but how was it determined Zodiac was a wealthy man? (oops…never mind. Monarch paper, more than one gun Presidio Heights)

Z doesn’t seem to properly fit either of those categories if you ask me.

He certainly never attempted to hide the victims: On the contrary, it seems like he wanted them found as soon as possible. This, incidentally, is one of the main reasons why I’ve never bought Lass as a Z victim.

I’ve been reading up a little on power assertive criminals, but the stuff I’ve come across is almost exclusively about rapists and/or murderers who were also (primarily) rapists. So it doesn’t really apply to Z.

Walter considers Z a non-sexual, power assertive killer – which sounds right as far as the first part goes. Exactly what the latter part means, I’m not clear on. “Power assertive” as defined by the sources mentioned seems to be a characteristic of people who almost invariably displays considerable (excessive, if you will) aggression when dealing with their victims. They also seem to behave in this way because they’re attempting to re-establish a sense of power they have, in one way or another, lost. This doesn’t seem to apply to Z – nor to Mr X, one might say: So, I’m guessing Walter isn’t using this definition of the term, at least not in the way used by said sources.

EDIT Just saw the quote above, which goes some way to explain what he means by the term. It certainly fits Z, going by that description. Shooting someone, somewhere, because it suited his needs. Well, that’s what Z seems to have done. However, I’m not clear on how the, say, pathological version of this type of killer differs from the one he seems to primarily describe, namely someone who commits murder for a particular reason, from a specific motive (greed, for instance). There is no reason to believe Z had any motive whatsoever – so what exactly does the assertion of power amount to for a, well, motiveless and considerably more "crazy" killer?

Yes, the last part doesn’t fit in regards to "thrill seekers", but there are always exceptions–as with "power assertive". To me, the thrill of it as described above fits much better than power.

Of course we have this too–the "Attention Seeker". A good watch for anyone who hasn’t seen it.

Most Evil: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MWsAKBwf2M

Forget statistics and look at facts. Mr. Walter has written papers on these subtypes and his profile is that Z was a non-sexual, wealthy power-assertive.

Mike

That doesn’t fit the profile at Lake B with somebody driving a car with mismatched worn tires. The only way for you to explain that would be that he used somebody else’s car. I know Ken Narlow felt confident that Zodiac, whoever he was, didn’t have a lot of money. I agree with him. Guns were a lot cheaper back then,and who knows, maybe he traded them after he used them, which wouldn’t cost a lot of money and would explain a different weapon each time. Here is a 1968 ad for the type of Gun used at LHR, $36,sure I could find more some lower,some higher,and while $36 back then would be a decent amount of money, it was not a fortune

To me, the thrill of it as described above fits much better than power.

Agreed. For my money he was definitely both a thrill seeker and an attention seeker.

What he did, as I see it, was to create a villain persona he honed in his letters, the intention being simply to boost his notoriety: If he had a need, as reflected in his actions, it would be to establish himself as some sort of bogeyman that people talked about and were frightened of. If that’s more or less true, I guess you could say there is an element of power assertion (loosely, generally) in that: If people fear you and you command their attention, you control them in a sense.

But I have a clear impression when it comes to Z: The persona creation (and then the maintenance of that persona) was the most important part for him. The killing served as a pretext (an excuse, almost) for the letter writing (it was in the letters "Zodiac" existed, in the flesh he was just a fairly business like murderer, or a remarkably awkward…something at LB), and I don’t know how well this jibes with any of the "formal" categories we’re talking about here. In the history of serial killers I suppose Berkowitz is the one who comes closest to Z in that regard, but his letters are completely different in nature from Z’s.

To me, the thrill of it as described above fits much better than power.

Agreed. For my money he was definitely both a thrill seeker and an attention seeker.

What he did, as I see it, was to create a villain persona he honed in his letters, the intention being simply to boost his notoriety: If he had a need, as reflected in his actions, it would be to establish himself as some sort of bogeyman that people talked about and were frightened of. If that’s more or less true, I guess you could say there is an element of power assertion (loosely, generally) in that: If people fear you and you command their attention, you control them in a sense.

But I have a clear impression when it comes to Z: The persona creation (and then the maintenance of that persona) was the most important part for him. The killing served as a pretext (an excuse, almost) for the letter writing (it was in the letters "Zodiac" existed, in the flesh he was just a fairly business like murderer, or a remarkably awkward…something at LB), and I don’t know how well this jibes with any of the "formal" categories we’re talking about here. In the history of serial killers I suppose Berkowitz is the one who comes closest to Z in that regard, but his letters are completely different in nature from Z’s.

I think he started killing simply because he was sick, and he had a desire to. Once he killed, although his crimes got attention, he still remained anonymous,still a nobody. Creating Zodiac, allowed him to get attention that he craved, and actually became more important to him then the killing. His confirmed killings lasted less than a year,while his confirmed letter writing lasted 5 years

I like the idea suggested by someone (I think it was jroberson) in another thread: Z may have expected a different kind of reaction (more publicity, perhaps, or a different kind of publicity) after LHR.

So he made sure he would get the right kind of attention after BRS, by establishing a defined villain character (who taunted the cops and demonstrated his cleverness).

But, yes – what originally prompted him to go out and actually kill someone was, clearly, something deeper and more pathological than attention seeking as such. I sometimes speculate that this "deeper" part was something he, himself, wasn’t much in touch with – if one can put it like that. My very amateurish theory is that what consciously drove him was the attention/notoriety seeking – the idea of becoming a symbol of fear, like some cartoon super villain. The actual "sickness" of his actions was lodged in some subconscious layer that he probably would have been very reluctant to recognize if he had been confronted with it. I’m not sick, I’m insane – went it not so?

I speculate that he drew on…examples (from movies, pulp fiction, cartoons) which he modeled his attacks on, experimenting with different ways of – well – killing people. Three distinctly different, well represented (in the sources he would have used for inspiration), methods: The lovers’ lane killing (which includes the "hunter" aspect, the killer who seeks out his prey in lonely spots), the ritualistic murder (which includes the Mikado style, "righteous" executioner aspect) – and the sneaky, shot-to-the-head execution.

All pure speculation, so ignore at your discretion.

As a Bates guy, I believe Cheri was Z’s first victim before there was a Z. I also believe he killed her for personal reasons, then found the media frenzy rewarding. And, when the frenzy abated, he discovered it could be reinvigorated by posting wacko, sicko letters to the police and press. The canonical Z killings show no personalized components; they were committed without care to make sure the victims were dead. The point, for Z, was not killing, but continuing the rush he got from seeing his crimes reported. To summarize: after Bates, he wasn’t interested in murder so much as publicity.

Did Walter consider Bates as one of the Zodiac murders? I’d be really interested to hear how he does or doesn’t think that they connect.

Did Walter consider Bates as one of the Zodiac murders? I’d be really interested to hear how he does or doesn’t think that they connect.

Seconded.