What did Scott Peterson and Michael Watts have in common? They killed someone that would clearly make them suspects.
But had there been a serial killer in the area and the murders match the M.O. then all the attention would be on catching this madman and not the husband.
This is where the ingenious of the Zodiac Killer comes into play. It was all misdirection. The other murders were just a means to an end to kill the one person he really wanted dead.
You want to kill someone, but don’t want the police to immediately suspect you.
First you need to establish a killer in the area. Someone the police will focus on instead.
Look how the first two incidents occurred. In the cover of the night, quick and impersonal (bam, bam, bam), as fast as possible.
Then the letters started rolling in. Establishing the storyline that a psychotic killer is on the loose and everybody is at risk.
Now that the police, the media, and public are on high alert here’s the most important part.
Look how the method of the next incident is completely different: daylight, knife, public place (high risk of getting caught).
This killing was personal. Cecelia Ann Shepard was the only one stabbed in the front. The only Zodiac killing he would have gotten a clear view of the horror and pain on the victims face.
What happens next?
More killings that matched the first two. Night cover and quick. If the killings stopped at Cecelia Shepard then the police are going to ask why. Yet, if you kill her in the middle then there’s less of a connection and her death will be seen more as an unfortunate case of wrong place at the wrong time.
Afterwards nothing. No killings. No letters. Silence. Why?
Was the Zodiac dead or in jail? No, he was done. The person he wanted dead was dead.
The Zodiac killer knew Cecelia Ann Shepard that much is clear.
No, he was done. The people he wanted dead was dead.
The Zodiac killer knew of all the victims that much is clear.
The only thing I can agree with.
The Zodiac killer knew Cecelia Ann Shepard that much is clear.
I don’t see how that’s possible when Cecelia clearly got a good view face on of the Zodiac approaching the two and never recognized him at all.
Plus, their trip to Berryessa was a last minute thing. Nobody else knew they were going there except them.
I think the OP makes a lot of good points, but galoomba makes a better point in regards to the specificity of Cecilia Shepherd. She saw him without the mask. She at no point even wondered if it was so and so, never once noticed his voice, his cadences?
I actually thought that Paul Stine was where you were going. What would appear to be the random, doesn’t fit the MO of the others, away from the rural area, in the middle of one of the richest parts of San Francisco. That would back up the belief that a lot of people have that Zodiac rode in the front.
The OP said Zodiac knew Cecilia. Doesn’t mean Cecilia knew Zodiac. The last sentence was my opinion and not necessarily theirs.
Chris Watts is his name, not Michael.
Also, the overall theory seems to be that killing multiple people over time is less risky than killing one person.
The main problem with the stalker scenario would be following them around all day on their seemingly aimless journey. Maybe carefree young folks would be too self-absorbed to notice, but for the stalker, it would require tons of patience with no assured pay-off. I suppose stranger things have happened.
It’s certainly an angle I’ve considered, but strictly in an Ed Kemper "stopped when he finally killed the true target of his rage" sense. Stine would have been the token victim who didn’t matter to him (to shift the focus away from the couples killings), after that, he’s just taking credit and not proving anything. But good luck turning up a Cecelia stalker 50+ years after the original investigation failed to.
You means Chris Watts?
Other murderers have certainly tried to conceal their motive/connection to their victim by hiding the target murder within a stack of other murders using the same MO.
Mah-na Mah-na
The OP said Zodiac knew Cecilia. Doesn’t mean Cecilia knew Zodiac. The last sentence was my opinion and not necessarily theirs.
That’s fair.
Classic novel ABC Murders from Agatha Christie – one murder with motive hidden among series of “senseless” murders. She used similar scenario in one more novel when murderer wanted to “rehearse” precise way of killing in presence of detective himself (how suspicious is event going to be and aim of investigation).
With Zodiac there is an issue…. “result” (character of killer) is different according to order of his murder spree. I have preference for one opinion, but I cannot rule out others. The crucial question is, whether Bates was Zodiac victim or not (and I think she was – mainly because of morbid poem connected with this killing which is Zodiac without any doubt).
If Bates was Zodiac victim, then its pretty obvious that Zodiac was stalker killer (let me compare him to Rader – just exclude direct sexual motive which Rader had and Zodiac did not in such an obvious way /it may have been hidden – there are killers who have sexual motive for murder based for example on sexual impotence/) and then it means he knew his target victim probably better than victims knew him. From Mike Mageau original witness statement (sort of “dont worry about it”), it seems that there is possibility of Darene being familiar with Zodiac (and that he didnt caused her panic or being afraid of him at the very first moment).
Just a little reply to Coffee time:
If you look at “stalker” killers aka Rader or Carpenter, those killers are mostly hidden. Rader even killed a woman who lived almost next door to him and she knew him…. but he wasnt considered as suspect. Therefore they are one-side stalkers – victims have no idea they are going to be prey of someone around them. Bundy and Rader have one thing in common – even people who worked with them daily did not see warning signals and women around him even said that if she would return home late night, it would be Rader or Bundy who would they ask to drive them home…. I honestly think, that Zodiac was similar case – simply very ordinary man and I honestly think that with people around him, he never mentioned anything related to Zodiac – he didnt boast about ciphers being his hobby or anything else. Ordinariness is characteristic of these type of killers and I think that investigators in late 60s or early 70s still did not have enough “profiling” information about this type of guys as they do have now. In my mind – Allen would be ruled out immediately as suspect, the very suspicious way he acted, its not the way how these killers act.
Edit:
BTW – in Rader case he considered killing his own wife, because when they published BTK letters, she noticed that killer does the same spelling mistake as her husband. She poked him about it once and he admitted that he considered killing her if she ever talked about it again. Sadly – she never contacted police with that information, it would save few lives.
Interesting theory but it’s impossible to prove or disprove it.
Interesting theory but it’s impossible to prove or disprove it.
From most part, I agree, it´s just “theory” but one thing is already proved by case itself – Zodiac is / was noone who would be “obvious suspect” and therefore it is / was “ordinary guy”. In any other case, it would be solved case for years or decades already.
@ptr1986 True but many serial killers seemed normal in their everyday lives before being captured.
And then all of a sudden they appear this creep in appearance that they had always been inside.
