no, he lied a lot in his letters.

no, he lied a lot in his letters.

Yeah, I understand he lied a lot. What I have a hard time wrapping my head around is that if the letter writer truly was the killer, then did he stop killing? I can’t think of a serial killer that just quit one day for whatever reason yet continued to taunt and act as if he was still killing. Maybe the rush of taunting the police was enough to quell the need to kill? Just doesn’t really make a lot of sense to me.

no, he lied a lot in his letters.

Yeah, I understand he lied a lot. What I have a hard time wrapping my head around is that if the letter writer truly was the killer, then did he stop killing? I can’t think of a serial killer that just quit one day for whatever reason yet continued to taunt and act as if he was still killing. Maybe the rush of taunting the police was enough to quell the need to kill? Just doesn’t really make a lot of sense to me.

it seems like the correspondence was more important than the killing since he spends a lot more effort in ciphers and letters than in the actual murders. that in and of itself is different than a lot of serial killers who seem to get their thrill from the ritual of the kill. if he didn’t stop killing, he certainly stopped writing about it which i find the more unlikely of those two scenarios. he could have died, ended up in jail, or just stopped getting a kick out of playing the game. he certainly seems "with it" enough to have decided to quit but we just don’t see a lot of those type serial killers – even btk, who took a long break, started up again eventually.

his correspondence tells us so much more about him than the murders, and i think that’s a telling clue. from the 408 cipher where he threatens to commit a murder spree over the weekend (thus letting us know he has a job) to the "debut of zodiac" letter where he gives a bunch of unwarranted "clues" (why would he tell LE the color of his car – oh right, he’s lying), to the nov 9 "bus bomb" letter where’s he obviously worried he left fingerprints and was seen by someone, he puts an inordinate amount of effort in his conversation with the public, effort that’s not seen in any of the murders. my 2 cents.

I’m not sure he did lie a lot. For example, when he said he was in the park, couldn’t he have said to himself, ‘last week’, under his breath? I have a feeling that, like Manson, he would feel outright lying was beneath him.

I mean, Manson did lie, of course, when he said, ‘I never killed anybody’. But he may have told himself he meant on those 2 particular nights.

So, if Z were to be confronted with, ‘You said you were in the park’, I could see him saying, ‘I didn’t say when’.

I don’t know, it’s just a thing psychopaths do. They’re slippery, and highly dishonest, but they can be very careful about not lying, because they feel they are too superior to have to.

Zydeco, I think the Zodiac did that a lot in his writings.

Thank you. I think Zodiac has almost spelled out who he is, and practically named some of his co-conspirators. (For the ’37’, I think we have to look at the word ‘me’.)

I struggle with computers, and I knew I’d made mistakes, such as the wrong spelling of ‘Orietem’, LaVey and Fouke, and mixing up the footprints. I’m usually wrong about everything, but hey, that’s how we learn, and I’ve only been studying this case for 3 months.

Sorry I was incoherent. But we are never going to catch the Zodiac unless we are prepared to be wrong, and if we are to be mocked personally for that, we are not pulling together.

LE has all the evidence I have found, such as videos of revealing interviews, and many photos of my suspect wearing the clothes, at the time, in the Bay Area – including the navy blue pants and the rust ones. (He is very famous.) So that’s the most important thing. I just want them to eliminate him. But I do think he’s still killing.

I was such a fan of all the people here. What they said was fine, apart from 1 thing. I was only joking about the booze. But what if I hadn’t been? It was as though someone tried to use my perceived weak spot, and I don’t like that. I felt I was in a flash gaslighting. Also, although irony can be dangerous, and some people don’t get my sense of humour, for the life of me I can’t think how I insulted anyone, and would never do that.

So, this crazy, tedious drunk doesn’t need the stress. (I love you Soze!) Thank you to the other kind people too. I have always depended on the kindness of strangers. It’s my fault; I joined the wrong website – ha – I have gone on holiday by mistake! (Withnail)

You may wish to have a look at this video. (He’s lying about his ‘conversion’, as his eye movements show in every interview, but in my opinion is telling the truth about the murder ring.) I have a much better documentary, closer to the truth, but feel it would be seen as too ‘out there’, so I won’t link to it. (But look to 7th Day Adventists!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JepFcuZVuo

Ebe gone. Iti. (This.)

Hey, zydeco!

It wasn’t that bad, and quoting Withnail is always a bonus.

I think the problem is this: Being a bit leftfield and out-of-the-box is NOT a bad thing. I doubt anyone here thinks that. But you started out – as I perceived it anyway – in a very incoherent, cryptic manner. That puts people on the alert – because trolls of all descriptions are sadly common on boards like this one. It’s hard to tell a good, but somewhat incoherent guy from a troll without knowing him or her better.

That’s all it is, really.

BTW, disappointed (now, in retrospect) that you didn’t avail yourself of this one:

Norse: You’re drunk.
Zydeco: I assure you I’m not, Norse. Honestly. I’ve only had a few ales.

Ha ha! To be brutally honest, I was terrified. I was watching every word I said. Actually, I realised I’d pulled a goof and said too much! My suspect kills people.

Anyway, you need a drink!

Actually, I’m much more coherent when I’m drunk. It’s like that old David Niven joke. The prawn takes the crab home to meet her parents for the first time. He has a wee drink to calm his nerves. He walks in and she says, ‘Darling, you’re walking in a straight line’. The crab says, ‘Shut up, I’m pissed’.

You have a brilliant mind. Truce?

Thank you. I think Zodiac has almost spelled out who he is, and practically named some of his co-conspirators. (For the ’37’, I think we have to look at the word ‘me’.)

Aside from, the coconspirator thing, I think you are spot on. The Zodiac was into the Zodiac. Everything was about him, him and him. Unless, of course, you were thinking of perhaps multiple personalities?

As to, everything but the i love you part, Norse, fed you straight. Give it time. You made your case perfectly.

Now, as far as the "i love you", shhhh. People might think we are engaged.

Soze

Granted, Z was a blowhard. Still, I have this nagging suspicion that his claim of 37 killings might be true. The number of his victims would be a major issue, and treated with scrupulous honesty. On the other hand (I have two of them) "37" may have/have had some numerical significance to him. Does "37" ring a bell for anyone?

There is suspicion regarding Cheri. There is suspicion regarding Donna Lass. In between we have 4 attack locations and 5 victims (7 counting those who lived). Nothing that we know after Donna other than his count. Sure. There could be additional victims but where are they? You would think after all this time something would come along to say as a matter of fact, yup, here is another of his. But nothing.

The Zodiac is clearly counting. He wants everyone to believe its victims. This leaves me suspect that there is another reason for the 37 other than victims and, simply, just because he wants us to believe it.

Soze