"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.

Yes, but in all three crimes scenes, there’s zero evidence, direct or otherwise, that supports this contention, and plenty of other testimony and facts that contradict it.

Again, Jensen was clearly killed with several bullets because she ran.

Ferrin suffered more shots because her placement put her in line with the bullets that passed through Mageau.

Shephard resisted her attacker and Hartnell allegedly asked to "go first".

In none of these three crimes do we have any evidence the Zodiac singled out the females for more violence than that received by the males.

Again, is it possible he resented the relationship shared by a woman and a couple? Sure. Is there any direct or indirect evidence for this theory? No.

The Zodiac never claimed resentment or envy of couples. He did mention something about getting his rocks off with a girl, which could be taken as a defensive posture against the charge he was killing for the reason you’ve claimed, or it could be because he just liked to brag about being a "big man", which seems to have been his general theme as a killer.

Now, back to what you said regarding sexual gratification….you used a quote by Townsend, to which I leveled a rebuttal. I’m not sure if you agree with him or not, but you included it in your statement, which is why I argued against it.

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.

There we go.

To be honest I didn’t read full what you wrote and I did go off a bit half-cocked, but in my defense you haven’t made yourself entirely clear.

Here you seem to be saying that the Zodiac became "incensed" by something someone said in the public and killed to prove that person wrong.

Okay, so the Zodiac wasn’t killing for sexual gratification, he was killing because women rejected him?

If you were the Zodiac, wouldn’t you rather be seen as a sex maniac instead of the guy who killed couples out of rejection by women?

Really, I don’t understand your theory at all, so perhaps you can explain it better for me. It’s rather early here in California after all and I’ve not had a lick of coffee.

These are not facts so we can’t theorize.

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.

I agree with that order of events 100%, almost. However if he had shot Faraday immediately he exited the vehicle, he wouldn’t have been lying 90 degrees with his feet almost touching the right rear tire. Also if he feared the male was the biggest threat, there was never any need to get so close to Faraday to produce a close contact wound behind his left ear and the class ring was dislodged. This is more suggestive of a brief struggle face to face and if the Zodiac was right handed David Faraday would then naturally try to grab the gun with his left hand and as the Zodiac forced the gun towards David Faraday’s head, the class ring was slid loose from his ring finger. In the brief struggle Zodiac’s free hand strikes the right side of David Faraday’s face, accounting for the swelling on his right cheek, but he was eventually overpowered and fell to the gravel turnout. Betty Lou panics and runs and you know the rest. But the general order sounds good.

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.

Yes, I see that, but then….wouldn’t the Zodiac resent the male as well, since he was the recipient of the female’s attention?

Why not spend a little time on both, then? Why just target the female when the man represents a form of masculinity the killer can never hope to achieve or emulate?

Again, and I want to be very clear here, I do not dispute the notion the Zodiac may have felt some level of envy towards a romantic couple. But it’s never been proved that was his motivation. He never claimed he killed out of jealousy or envy or resentment. In all fairness, I doubt he would have even if true. He did claim he killed for sport, because it’s "fun", and I don’t doubt that was partly true. I do doubt however the claim he especially targeted the females, simply because the known facts do not support such a contention, beyond a certain level of disposable superficiality.

I also tend to think killing Stine was far more about shocking and terrorizing the public than disproving some nutty theory from some nobody bumpkin cop. Also, the Zodiac was, IIRC, accused of homosexuality, a rather grave and offensive charge even in the hippiesh, counterculture Bay area, a charge that didn’t compel the Zodiac to rape and kill a female victim simply to prove his masculine efficacy.

Seems to me, the "lies" he hated were the lies that reduced his power stature, those that made him look weak and ineffectual before the public he sought to terrorize, demoralize and control, those that reduced his standing among his perplexed, morbidly curious audience.

As such, I really don’t think Townsend’s stupid, uneducated comment would have insulted him. I think the Zodiac would have laughed it off, if he had paid it much mind at all.

His complex mind processes are something we may never understand, but like you said the lies that reduced his power stature and the public he sought to terrorize, demoralize and control, would have irritated him, but equally the numerous ill thought out comments by police officers that may or may not have inflamed an already dreadful situation. For a man who liked control, descriptions of a sex fiend, psychopath, madman, lunatic were never likely to improve his anger. He may well have laughed it off, it depends how in control he was in between his killings.

Man, it is early…

I agree with that order of events 100%, almost. However if he had shot Faraday immediately he exited the vehicle, he wouldn’t have been lying 90 degrees with his feet almost touching the right rear tire.

Why? We don’t precisely know where Faraday was standing when he was shot, and a body tends to twist and contort when its main motor control facility is abruptly disabled.

Also if he feared the male was the biggest threat, there was never any need to get so close to Faraday to produce a close contact wound behind his left ear and the class ring was dislodged.

Why not? Why take the chance the guy you’re intending to murder is going to rush you and take control? The best way to handle that situation is to give your victims hope it’s just a robbery and then, without warning, fully disable the most significant and immediate threat.

Sure, the Zodiac could have shot Faraday in the head from the distance, but given the darkness, and the fact the killer had his quarry under control (Faraday clearly thought they were being robbed and thus could feel at least some notion of possible survival), there’s no reason to not shoot the male directly in the head (contact wound, as per the autopsy IIRC) as soon as he’s out of the car and within reach of your barrel.

This is more suggestive of a brief struggle face to face and if the Zodiac was right handed David Faraday would then naturally try to grab the gun with his left hand and as the Zodiac forced the gun towards David Faraday’s head, the class ring was slid loose from his ring finger. In the brief struggle Zodiac’s free hand strikes the right side of David Faraday’s face, accounting for the swelling on his right cheek, but he was eventually overpowered and fell to the gravel turnout. Betty Lou panics and runs and you know the rest. But the general order sounds good.

That sounds like a whole lot of imaginative supposition without a shred of proof to support it. No offense.

The bulge on Faraday’s cheek was caused, IINM, by the ricochet of the killer’s bullet as it rattled around inside David’s head. This is a common occurrence, actually. I’ve seen images of people with large cranial bulges caused by fragmentation of a bullet, or the whole bullet itself, or just the force of the bullet pushing tissue and bone about.

The idea Faraday’s swollen cheek was caused by a slap from the Zodiac is, well, just not likely, and from what I know of his autopsy, outright false.

I seriously also doubt Faraday would have fought the Zodiac if he thought he were being merely robbed. Would you? The whole idea is you give your robber what he wants so that he goes away, e.g. Hartnell. I’m also pretty sure Faraday believed the chances of being robbed were far greater than being murdered for no reason, so why fight? It’s not like David expected to be killed at random by some lone strange psycho, right? So again, why would he fight a fight he had virtually no chance of winning and when he could reasonable hope if not outright believe he stood a good chance of receiving no more than a terrible fright and some lost possessions, rather than having his head blown out and his girlfriend shot down like animal farm fodder?

For David, it was far more likely the possibility he was being robbed, not randomly murdered, which is why Jensen "waited" until Faraday was killed before bolting.

I can also tell you from personal experience: you do not fight your attacker if he’s holding a gun and you believe you’re being merely robbed. My brother and I were held up by two well-armed "people", and we complied fully. We were dispossessed of our wallets only, which is, I think, by far and away the most common expectation. Pretty sure David was no different in that respect.

EDIT EDIT EDIT.

For a man who liked control, descriptions of a sex fiend, psychopath, madman, lunatic were never likely to improve his anger. He may well have laughed it off, it depends how in control he was in between his killings.

The man cheerily addressed himself as "the murderer" and took great and elaborate pains to specify his homicidal depravity. Thus, I seriously doubt the Zodiac wrung his wrists when labeled a madman, psychopath or lunatic by the police. If anything, such appellations engorged his ego, considering it seems the killer was at the time deliberately attempting to construct a reputation as a "madman, lunatic and psychopath".

I also seriously doubt being labeled a "sex fiend" would have done much but make him believe his masculinity had been greatly enlarged, especially considering he bragged about sex with women in his 408 cipher.

Certainly he took no apparent offense to being labeled a homosexual, which for a "tough guy" like the Zodiac, who was doing everything he could to portray himself to the public as a fearless monster, would have been the worst insult imaginable.

Also, the Zodiac effectively vanished from the public fore when he no longer could provide the depraved brutality that was his calling card, thus members of the police and press calling him "bad names" would not have fazed the sociopath, as such people are usually situated well above flimsy moral reprove, even when they are not deliberately trying to craft a public reputation as an unpredictable, brutal homicidal maniac.

Really, this is the guy who wrote the Los Angeles Times, bragging about the people he killed in Southern California, just to have an indulging audience. He certainly didn’t care what people thought about him so long as what they thought comported with his image of himself as an urban bogeyman striking cold fear into the heart of his enraptured public.

EDIT EDIT EDIT.

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.

According to the infamous ranger – so I’d call that semi-apocryphal at best.

The first part, though – yes: I agree. She resisted, moved, squirmed – made it harder for him. So he attacked more violently and stabbed her more times.

His complex mind processes are something we may never understand, but like you said the lies that reduced his power stature and the public he sought to terrorize, demoralize and control, would have irritated him, but equally the numerous ill thought out comments by police officers that may or may not have inflamed an already dreadful situation. For a man who liked control, descriptions of a sex fiend, psychopath, madman, lunatic were never likely to improve his anger. He may well have laughed it off, it depends how in control he was in between his killings.

I don’t see the complexity of thought here. More than likely, the killer (Z) knew his female victims in some capacity – was jolted by rejection in some form and simply acted to demonstrate his dominance. A timeless calamity of the human heart and mind and as basic as it gets.

But yes, I would agree that the Zodiac may have felt some envy towards couples and that may have been why he killed Jensen and Faraday.

He could have killed them because he enjoyed killing and people were the next step in that progression, as well.

Or a little of both.

Regardless, the first is supported by nothing but supposition and perhaps the professional musing of various criminal profilers such as Roy Hazelwood and John Douglas.

The second is supported by the killer’s own claims and, with Stine perhaps, later actions.

Certainly, bus bombs and shooting kids has little direct association with an alleged envy of romantically-engaged couples, so if that was the Zodiac’s motivation, he certainly fell far afield from his original ambitions…

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.

According to the infamous ranger – so I’d call that semi-apocryphal at best.

Perhaps, but why would he lie about it?

EDIT: Seems Hartnell objected to the line "I am chicken, stab me first" found in original versions of Fincher’s Zodiac. Here’s what he says, according to an interview with Inland Empire magazine:

Before filming began, Zodiac producers gave Hartnell a copy of the script. Although a few facts had to be compressed for time constraint, he asked for one change. Graysmith had heard from one of the investigators that Hartnell had told the Zodiac, "I’m chicken, stab me first". He won’t come out and say it but, clearly, he finds the misquote deeply offensive. Most importantly, he says, it’s untrue.

"The only reason I’m sensitive about it is it’s so preposterous," he explains. "First of all I had no clue that it [the stabbing] was going to happen until it happened. And I don’t think a person who was chicken would say ‘I’m chicken, stab me first.’ I mean, I can say I’m chicken, I don’t want to be stabbed but I don’t think anyone would say ‘stab me first!’".

He won his case and the line was excised from the script.

http://zodiackiller.fr.yuku.com/topic/2 … VOIGC7oU6s

So he never said it, per the victim himself, and I guess the ranger was just exercising some time-appropriate mendacity…

According to Hartnell’s interview, he does not say that he asked to be stabbed first. What Bryan says sounds like the knifing came out of the blue with little or no preamble.

http://www.zodiackiller.com/HartnellInterview5.html

According to Hartnell’s interview, he does not say that he asked to be stabbed first. What Bryan says sounds like the knifing came out of the blue with little or no preamble.

http://www.zodiackiller.com/HartnellInterview5.html

Yes. I edited my above post to reflect an interview Hartnell gave in 2007. His original police interview, from Voigt’s site, doesn’t mention such a thing either.

One has to wonder if the ranger made that statement, or Graysmith made it up. I’m leaning towards the latter.

I’m starting to think Graysmith should be in prison for fraud.

It was the ranger. Can’t remember if he said "I’m chicken", but he did mention "stab me first"….it’s on video.

Edit: Here is it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyO0XOO2c38 (at about 3:30)

Just goes to show you how stories get twisted…even by one person.

Since you asked if I were a 16/17 year old high student parked up in a dark turnout in the ‘wilderness’ and somebody fired shots into my car at 11.15 pm, the last thing I would ever think is, oh its a robbery and get out of the car, and I would die trying to get the hell out of there with my foot on the gas. A grown man who is intent solely on robbery is not likely to target college kids for 10 cents at the crack of midnight if he was just a thief, he would be the worst robber in living memory, and if that’s all he was, he would unlikely shoot me anyway. "I want to rob those kids, damn, they’re pulling out, never mind I’ll shoot them anyway and get the chair. No forget it, can’t win all the time"
Now the second scenario- a man with rope dangling from a ceremonial executioners outfit, adorned with a crosshair descends the slope from behind a tree, "don’t worry I’m not going to hurt you, robbery is just my motive, I need the money, I’m skint after buying this costume from the joke shop ". Reply: "If you want to just rob us Lord High Executioner, why the need for the 40 dollar outfit, rope, knife and crosshair". Get out of it, would you ever let somebody tie you up and risk being tortured for hours, no chance, I would sooner go for the gun, even if I died trying. How many robbers put on fancy dress costumes dressed as Donald Duck before they rob you in the subway.