It’s an interesting theory. What strikes me immediately, though, is that a killer who targeted women (to get back at some original object of hatred) would have, well, targeted women – and not couples. If the male was just in the way, so to speak – a threat he needed to take care of before attending to the real business – then why not steer clear of males altogether?

My basic assumption (which I’m not married to, but which I see no reason to ditch either) is that what Z targeted was principally victims who found themselves in certain locations. Couples or people who are alone at night – as he creepily said in the 3-part letter.

But, yes – the "rather angry" comment needs explaining. And it seems to refer to Townsend’s remarks. Z didn’t like that – for whatever reason. But it’s not hard to see that he – who regarded himself as clever, a cartoon style arch fiend – didn’t like it when they tried to reduce his "thing" to something pathological/sexual. I don’t think Stine is necessarily a reaction to this – the two may be unrelated, so to speak.

I won’t comment on Confession/Bates, as that debate is raging elsewhere – but I will just say that including this in the theory is problematic. Everything else notwithstanding, the rage displayed by Bates’ killer seems to be of a very different kind than anything Z displayed – so if it was him, he must have been in a different state of mind than he was later, when he killed BLJ, DF and CS.

It was the relationship he hated, something coveted, something he was unable to form and the woman was the target because her affection was directed towards the man. It was something he couldn’t attain to and hated the women out of a sense of rejection.

I don’t think that Zodiac’s crimes were about sexual gratification. I think they were about control. He may have been a man who had no control over his personal life and the sheer frustration of not being able to make his own decisions is what brought him to the point of killing. I think that the reason the male was attacked first was that Zodiac was rooted in the belief that a man is stronger than a woman and he wanted to eliminate the greater threat first.

It certainly could have angered Zodiac that a sexual angle was focused upon instead of his true motive for being in control and that was why he killed a lone male after the Berryessa attack. It was as if to say, see I didn’t kill a woman, no sexual motive here.

Exactly Seagull hence the deviation and then he distanced himself further from a sexual element by threatening to bomb people even further distancing himself, since it is a remote crime, as well as the added terror threat.

Agreed!

I think Graysmith mentions in the yellowbook, that the killings were "the substitute for the sex act". I don’t recall what he based this on, or if some Professional gave their opinion to RG about this, or if RG himself thought this.

The Zodiac Killer in his first two attacks targeted the passenger side door, however he didn’t strike immediately at Lake Herman Road. It is believed he allowed Betty Lou to exit first, then shot David Faraday first, execution style to the head. ie; dispatch the male threat first with one bullet and be left with the woman to unleash his full fury. At Blue Rock Springs he attempted the same, trying to shoot Mageau in the head, but struck his neck, causing his aim to be compromised "When I fired the first shot at his head, he leaped backwards at the same time, thus spoiling my aim". It is quite possible he accidentally shot Darlene Ferrin in the process, ruining his original plan of leaving Ferrin alive once he had killed Mageau, so he could now vent his unbridled hate towards the female victim. At Lake Berryessa, obviously he changed method, but again targeted the male first, to be once again left with the woman. Was the woman always the primary focus of his attention, the male just got in his way, lending idea to the argument his resentment was with couples, a bond of love which he ultimately couldn’t achieve with women, which made him feel the rejection he had suffered down the years. Confession Letter: "Making her pay for all the brush off’s that she had given me during the years prior".
His primary focus was the woman and in three of the four cases the male was either murdered or was attempted to be murdered with a single execution style shot. But of course Stine was a lone 29 year old taxicab driver, however in the press reports after the Berryessa attack Captain Townsend stated "He must get his sex gratification from the act of killing". Do you think the Zodiac Killer read this and became incensed, his motive was never sex, it was rejection by a female and his inability to land a relationship. He would then specifically target Paul Stine as a way of rebutting the notion he was some sort of sex fiend by specifically targeting a member of the opposite sex in such a brutal and callous way and show law enforcement that in no way was his killing sexually driven. We know he read the newspapers and did not like the lies they spread. Bus Bomb Letter: "I have grown rather angry with the police for their telling lies about me". Could he have read this throw away comment by Captain Townsend and it changed the very course of his next attack, which he waited hardly any time to make plain. It has always confused me why this attack was the only one not committed on couples, and the Bus Bomb Letter was pretty much immediate to the Stine Letter (Oct 13th), just one month later. "So I shall change the way the collecting of slaves". What do you think.

Interesting thought about the motive, I think it might very well be true. It was said that the street where CJB was killed was near a place military guys had met girls from RCC ‘around the corner’ as they were not allowed to hang around the campus itself.

What we had never thought about was the possibility of Z being with a woman in Stine’s cab. Guess the three (?) young witnesses would have noted that, too. Do we know anything about Paul Stine’s relationship to girls? Such as if he was single or had a girl during the time of his murder?

QT

He was married in 1967.

It is believed he allowed Betty Lou to exit first, then shot David Faraday first, execution style to the head.

Believed by whom? I don’t "believe" that. Not really sure a criminal case is about beliefs, but more about theories based on facts.

In this case, what facts are there? The Zodiac shot Faraday first and Jensen second. Why? Because the Zodiac hated women primarily, or because Faraday was the male who presented himself to the Zodiac as the female’s protector and thus incurred the first blow?

Not really buying your above theory.

The way I see it, the Zodiac shot Faraday first because he was the largest threat and because David happened to be right there in open.

I don’t think The Zodiac "allowed" Jensen to escape, I think she bolted into the dark when the Zodiac shot Faraday.

In the case of Mageau and Ferrin, I think he simply chose the right side and Mike happened to be there. Again, he may have decided to dispatch the male first. And as I’ve read the case notes, Ferrin wasn’t targeted for exceptional brutality, she was the recipient of more bullets because some of those fired at Mike passed through him into Darlene.

Jensen, on the other hand, was running, and thus had to be cut down as quickly as possible lest she escape into the dark wilderness.

At Lake Berryessa, the Zodiac stabbed Shephard with more ferocity than Hartnell only because she resisted. Brian played dead, Cecilia fought back. If The Zodiac had possessed as much sexual rage for women as you claim, I certainly think he would have inflicted far more damaged, as was clearly done to Bates.

And where was the hatred for women evident with the murder of Stine? You claim he did killed Stine to discredit the notion that he was in fact a "lust killer", but I’ve yet to read a case where, firstly, lust killers kill without much sexual gratification, such as rape or at least a fondling of their victims, and secondly, the killer actually changes his victim type to prove someone wrong.

Really, I think if you look at all four crime scenes, you’ll see that though the particulars change, the signature doesn’t: a rather quick, utilitarian killing, a speedy escape, and some kind of claim of involvement.

Then you tie your theory into the Confession Letter, which was never authenticated as a letter from the Zodiac.

From what I can tell, though there may have been an element of resentment, the Zodiac made his intentions clear: he had bored of hunting animals and had instead chosen to hunt humans. That he attacked three couples may simply mean that they presented the easiest targets, such that they were alone, isolated, and defenseless. In those instances, the Zodiac could kill with impunity. He could take lives and never fear the threat of apprehension. In those moments, he was the supreme hunter, the taker of life. In those few moments, the Zodiac was god. Or as it was written in Manhunter:

Will Graham: l’m sick of you, Lecktor. If you’ve got something to say, say it!

Doctor Hannibal Lecktor: l want to help you, Will. You’d be more comfortable if you relaxed with yourself! We don’t invent our natures, they’re issued to us with our lungs and pancreas and everything else. Why fight it?

Will Graham: Fight what?

Doctor Hannibal Lecktor: Did you really feel depressed after you shot Mr. Garrett Jacob Hobbes to death? l think you probably did. But it wasn’t the act that got to you. Didn’t you feel so bad, because killing him felt so good? And why shouldn’t it feel good? lt must feel good to God. He does it all the time. God’s terrific! He dropped a church roof on 34 of his worshippers in Texas last Wednesday night, just as they were groveling through a hymn to his majesty. Don’t you think that felt good?

Will Graham: Why does it feel good, Dr. Lecktor?

Doctor Hannibal Lecktor: lt feels good because God has power. lf one does what God does enough times, one will become as God is. God’s a champ. He always stays ahead. He got 140 Phillipinos in one plane crash last year. Remember that earthquake in ltaly last spring?

I did say he dispatched the male threat first and never said he inflicted sexual rage against the woman. I did say his primary focus was the woman. The murders were nothing to do with sex. And I did give a possible reason about the Stine killing. My theory may not be correct but you are saying I said things I didn’t.
"If The Zodiac had possessed as much sexual rage for women as you claim, I certainly think he would have inflicted far more damage". Who said this.
"I don’t think The Zodiac "allowed" Jensen to escape . Who said this.
"and secondly, the killer actually changes his victim type to prove someone wrong".. We don’t know this for certain but we do know he was prepared to " change the way the collecting of slaves. I shall no longer announce to anyone. When I committ my murders, they shall look like routine robberies, killings of anger, + a few fake accidents, etc".

Finally "Believed by whom? I don’t "believe" that. Not really sure a criminal case is about beliefs, but more about theories based on facts". We can never speculate or ponder again.

"The way I see it (In other words you believe), the Zodiac shot Faraday first because he was the largest threat and because David happened to be right there in open.
I don’t think The Zodiac "allowed" Jensen to escape, I think she bolted into the dark when the Zodiac shot Faraday". These are not facts so we can’t theorize.

And I did give a possible reason about the Stine killing.

I corrected what I wrote regarding Stine because I wasn’t finished. You have to let one finish their post before arguing against its content, and I had no idea you were policing this thread, to be honest, and the flow of posts here is more of trickle than a torrent.

I did say he dispatched the male threat first and never said he inflicted sexual rage against the woman. I did say his primary focus was the woman. The murders were nothing to do with sex. My theory may not be correct but you are saying I said things I didn’t.

To be perfectly honest, I’m not sure then what you are claiming.

You seem to be saying that though the Zodiac killed couples, but he was actually targeting the women. Then why not just kill women? Why target couples altogether? Certainly Donna Lass was no real effort to "disappear", and thousands of other serial killers have had no trouble whatsoever killing single women. To me your theory is thus: the Zodiac targeted couples because he was angry he could not experience that kind of interpersonal connection. Then, in the process of avenging his misery, he dispatched the males so he could better focus on the females. The evidence doesn’t seem to support that theory in its fullest form.

As I said, in the case of Jensen and Faraday, the former received the bulk of shots because she ran into the dark towards the road and had to be expeditiously cut down.

In the case of Ferrin and Mageau, the former received more wounds because some of the bullets that hit Mike passed through him and hit her. When the Zodiac returned to the car, he shot each victim twice again, which, if he had favored inflicting more violence on the women, doesn’t support the claim the Zodiac deliberately targeted the women for increased violence.

In the case of Shephard and Hartnell, the Zodiac attacked Cecilia with more ferocity because she resisted. I also think Hartnell specifically asked to be stabbed first, IIRC.

Did the Zodiac target couples because they represented the thing he felt he could not have? Maybe. Perhaps that’s how his crime spree began with Jensen and Faraday. Perhaps he was out late, bored, alone, angry, resenting his state, and saw two kids connecting in way he never had, which compelled him to kill them.

Or perhaps, as he claimed, he killed because he enjoyed it and couples presented the easiest possible target, the target with the least likely probability of resulting in incarceration.

After all, when you place yourself far outside the boundaries of the tribe and its ability to protect its members, you create a situation whereby you become "easy prey", especially when you’re unarmed, darkness has fallen, and the hour is late.

Regardless, there doesn’t seem to be much factual evidence to support the theory you’ve presented, although I cannot disprove the possibility the Zodiac did kill couples out of, at least, some feelings of envy and hatred. Certainly he never said so, and actually claimed he killed as a matter of sport, if one could label killing defenseless people such a thing.

Finally "Believed by whom? I don’t "believe" that. Not really sure a criminal case is about beliefs, but more about theories based on facts". We can never speculate or ponder again.

You wrote: "It is believed he allowed Betty Lou to exit first, then shot David Faraday first". Believed by whom? Believed by you? Believed by someone somewhere in the folds of time and space?

You made a claim that someone believes something, without specific attribution. One could assume you believe such a thing but you’re never clear.

Really, I wasn’t arguing specifically that you believed such a thing, although you never clarified, precisely, who claimed or believed what.

Regardless, I was arguing against the general statement, without specifically attributing it to just you and you alone.

Regardless of whoever believes what, there’s no evidence the Zodiac allowed Jensen to escape and plenty of reasons to think otherwise.

"You seem to be saying that though the Zodiac killed couples, but he was actually targeting the women. Then why not just kill women? Why target couples altogether? "
Norse asked this in the second post, and I answered.
It was the relationship he hated, something coveted, something he was unable to form and the woman was the target because her affection was directed towards the man. It was something he couldn’t attain to and hated the women out of a sense of rejection.

These are not facts so we can’t theorize.

They are not facts insomuch as there are no eyewitnesses to the crime and no direct evidence. But when taken as a whole, the crime scene tells a tale that seems rather consistent, a tale that, in general, seems to have one and only one possible narrative.

Or to put it another way, how likely is it the Zodiac gunned down Jensen in the dark with a hail of bullets while Faraday was staring into space?

As I recall, Faraday was seen sitting in the driver’s seat. The passenger car was found ajar. Faraday was discovered laying dead immediately off to the Rambler’s right side. He was shot once, in the head. Jensen was shot several times near the road.

How then likely is it the narrative played out differently than I’ve described? How do you explain the shot to the right of the car that seems to indicate the Zodiac’s method of compelling the kids out of the car?

All in all, the only narrative that fits the known facts is thus: the Zodiac approached the car from the right, fired a shot to force his victims into the open, he then shot Faraday as he exited the vehicle. And then, like Jackie Kennedy fleeing John F. Kennedy in the back of their motorcade, Jensen bolted, which caused the Zodiac to gun her down.

Really, no other narrative fits all the physical facts.