Yes all of Zodiac’s victims were easy prey, which means Zodiac was/is a Punk. IMO Paul Stine was someone in SF and that was the first criteria, to mess
with the big time cops, SFPD. Vallejo and Napa are pretty rinky-dink in comparison. But Zodiac had to justify the killing for some reason, "F*** around,
lay around." Couples messing around when in Zodiac’s opinion they shouldn’t be. Paul Stine may have been the offer of homosexual sex, and when agreed to,
he had to die. Was Zodiac transgendered, no, but he was a latent homosexual, who acted out his behavior with other men, but lived as a heterosexual.
Okay so now that I have freaked everyone out again, this is IMO.

I’m not freaked out – I just think you’re very wrong about that indeed, 1WK. I’m disappointed.

But a cabbie is SO lacking in originality or scary threat. Cab drivers are robbed and/or/were killed often.

I would say to Zodiac, "BFD…you killed a cab driver".

If it was for SF notoriety, I’d say Zodiac was quite nervous to kill in SF, and it proves even more his cowardness.

Hi Tahoe27,

I am wondering about your sense that Z was quite nervous to kill in SF.

My perception is quite the opposite. It appears to me to have remained relatively calm as he took his time to wipe down the car, etc. I think many killers would have bolted running after committing such a crime. Also, if it was Z that the police encountered shortly afterward, then that appears to me to be even more reason to say he remained very composed.

May I ask your reasons for perceiving him as quite nervous?

Thanks,

G

But a cabbie is SO lacking in originality or scary threat. Cab drivers are robbed and/or/were killed often.

I would say to Zodiac, "BFD…you killed a cab driver".

If it was for SF notoriety, I’d say Zodiac was quite nervous to kill in SF, and it proves even more his cowardness.

Hi Tahoe27,

I am wondering about your sense that Z was quite nervous to kill in SF.

My perception is quite the opposite. It appears to me to have remained relatively calm as he took his time to wipe down the car, etc. I think many killers would have bolted running after committing such a crime. Also, if it was Z that the police encountered shortly afterward, then that appears to me to be even more reason to say he remained very composed.

May I ask your reasons for perceiving him as quite nervous?

Thanks,

G

To me killing a cab driver is the easiest, most cowardly way to kill someone. That’s all. He didn’t kill in SF again…or so it would seem.

Taking the credit for it later was bold, but to me, he got in and out of SF.

The comment I’m about to make is sure to elicit squawks of protest, but here goes….
My "POI"’s signature includes a cursive "d" that is unusual. The lower, circular part of the ‘d" is tiny, almost non-existent, whereas the vertical portion is huge, to the point of being grotesque. Upon seeing this "d" I flashed that the author was probably impotent, and desperately wanted to appear an uber mensch although, in truth, he was sexually inadequate and unable to perform with a female.
My "POI", who lived in Riverside, was married perhaps a month or so before Cheri Bates was murdered. I strongly suspect he knew Cheri from "years past" and may have been spurned by her. Continuing to crawl out on a rickety limb, let me suppose he disappointed his bride bedwise, and encountered Bates at RCC, with results with which we’re all too familiar. Et voila! He discovers that he IS potent! Unfortunately, however, the memories fade–and so does his potency. The solution, of course, is to kill again. And again…
Until he Kills Paul Stine, for whatever reason. And Z finds, to his horror, that he becomes sexually aroused by murdering a man, and only a man! Z, the uber mensch, fears he is homosexual. In denial, he mails Stine’s bloody swatches of shirt to those whose opinions he values. To those he deems, however reluctantly, his judges and his betters.
After Stine, no more murders. Boasting, yes; threats, yes. But, no more murders.

The comment I’m about to make is sure to elicit squawks of protest, but here goes….
My "POI"’s signature includes a cursive "d" that is unusual. The lower, circular part of the ‘d" is tiny, almost non-existent, whereas the vertical portion is huge, to the point of being grotesque. Upon seeing this "d" I flashed that the author was probably impotent, and desperately wanted to appear an uber mensch although, in truth, he was sexually inadequate and unable to perform with a female.
My "POI", who lived in Riverside, was married perhaps a month or so before Cheri Bates was murdered. I strongly suspect he knew Cheri from "years past" and may have been spurned by her. Continuing to crawl out on a rickety limb, let me suppose he disappointed his bride bedwise, and encountered Bates at RCC, with results with which we’re all too familiar. Et voila! He discovers that he IS potent! Unfortunately, however, the memories fade–and so does his potency. The solution, of course, is to kill again. And again…
Until he Kills Paul Stine, for whatever reason. And Z finds, to his horror, that he becomes sexually aroused by murdering a man, and only a man! Z, the uber mensch, fears he is homosexual. In denial, he mails Stine’s bloody swatches of shirt to those whose opinions he values. To those he deems, however reluctantly, his judges and his betters.
After Stine, no more murders. Boasting, yes; threats, yes. But, no more murders.

Squawk!

I had no idea a fella’s little old "d" could be so revealing.

I hope you never get a peek at mine.

G

Possible reasons for Paul Stine killing:

1) Premeditation: Stine was intended victim
2) Premeditation: Location was the focus
3) Premeditation: Intent was to murder a cabbie, but not specifically Stine
4) Premeditation: Intent was to make a point
5) Premeditation: Intent was to lay a red herring
6) Premeditation: Other

7) Impulsiveness: Driver offended Z in some way
8) Impulsiveness: Z acted under influence of drugs and/or alcohol
9) Impulsiveness: Reckless act was function of Z’s unpredictability or psychosis
10) Impulsiveness: Z was upset or angry because of an unrelated latter, took it out on Stine
11) Impulsiveness: Just for fun
12) Impulsiveness: Other

13) Wasn’t Zodiac crime

Question: Is there a category of motivations (or more than one–they are not all mutually exclusive) that you favor? Any that you believe are likely wrong?

My answer: Initially I favored #2 as location worked extremely well with my Zodiac Mountain Theory. Since that is now on hold, I have been thinking a lot about the possibility that Z was transgendered. In that case, it seems very possible that Paul Stine may have offended Z–thus, #7.

As far as #1 goes, so far I am inclined notto believe that Stine was targetted (#1). This is since reading Mike Kelleher’s analysis on ZodiacRevisited.com: http://zodiacrevisited.com/paul-stine-a … portunity/

Would like to hear other people’s points of view.

G

The only scenarios I entertain are #4 and #7.

#4 – Zodiac murders Paul to ‘balance the books’. To compensate for the fact that he had failed to murder two of his male victims.

#7 – Zodiac, originally headed to the purported lover’s lane spot in SF (there apparently was one), flies off the handle and shoots Paul instead, due to taking offence to something Paul said.

External appearance (circa 1969)

age: 34-45 years
Height: 5’9”-6’0”
Weight: 175-195 lbs

appearance: white male, medium height, stocky builded, with dark brown hair (which in the light of day may fall into reddish brown)

Psychological profile

– A loner, without any closer family (no wife and children)
– No siblings or not maintaining close contact with them
– Perhaps stemming from a dysfunctional family (may’ve been raised by the mother)
– An individual with some above-average degree of intelligence
– Showing all the characteristics of antisocial personality disorder
– Feeling bad among the people, but capable of hiding it
– An individual not capable to maintain healthy relationship because of the lack of respective patterns from childhood
– Probably have never been in a partner. relationship
– Individual that was probably not enjoying much popularity within his youth
– Probably affected by anhedonia (partial loss of ability to feel pleasure)
– Individual feeling the strong prejudice against females (misogyny)
– Performing an unsatisfactory job
– Looking for strong impressions (anhedonia)
– Feels an aversion to the law enforcement agencies (mostly to the police), which probable cause may be his earlier trouble with the law and/or unfulfilled dream of being a police officer (perhaps he made an application but has not been commissioned)
– Probably having a military background
– An individual with a high degree of so-called social intelligence
– Showing awareness of proper behavior to manipulate (exerting influence on other people)
– One that could have consciously imaginated an alter ego in order to dump the blame on it (not guilt)
– Not having a sense of guilt or remorse (antisocial personality disorder)
– With strong self-esteem, feels superiority over other people, produced from the sense of being underestimated
– Feeling a strong desire to make "something big" in his own opinion
– Probably inspired by the case of Jack the Ripper, and wanted to do a "similar thing" and this way enroll in the history of true crime
– Egocentric personality (selfish – which also comes directly from his antisocial personality disorder)
– Showing a very arbitrary relationship to the surrounding reality
– Exhibiting classical attitude to his victims (animals, empty or imaginary beings)
– Thoughtful, not much defiant towards his victims (no interaction or intimidation used)
– Capable of making a cool calculation, impulsive only when he can afford it (no self-confidence in stressful situations)
– Not acting under the influence of the moment, but after he planned his modus operandi (APD – calculative type)
– Preferring the attack by surprise (giving him an additional advantage over the victim/s)
– System of the victims selection: mixed or completely random
– The victim completely unknown to him or known only "by sight" (which also may have been, for example, because he lived nearby the crime site/s)
– Individual somewhat influenced by mass culture (and therefore to some extent interested in theater, film, music, books etc.)

Psychological profile drawn on the basis of my own observations and thoughts related to the Zodiac crimes, as well as his communications with the media and law enforcement.

P.S. sorry for grammar shortcomings.

Well this is refreshing, I would say you are in the 95% accuracy range on your ZK profile. I can agree with 95+ percent of your profile, very nice summary!

One of the most tantalizing aspects of the Z. case, is how much was information provided in or on his letters (including postage!) and how little has been learned. Did he love his mother? Hate his father? Have a child, son or daughter? If so, was Z a homosexual, latent or not? How would any of this square, exactly, with what actually has been known about serial killers, they blend in. And this fellow had blended in, apparently, pretty damn, good regardless of his predispositions (other than homicidal).

I prefer to cut here with the razor of Occam: Z likely worked or lived in or around SF. Z was a sociopath. Z knew lots of SF locales; Telegraph Hill, Camera Obscura, and Vallejo up north, where also could have lived (or worked). He also went after young people, or relatively young people (like Paul Stine), hunted them, then killed them. He was remorseless, sadistic, with a knowledge of film and music, and a certain loathing of the social upheaval of the late 60s.
This may have been because the focus of the "flower children" generation bypassed Z’s own aesthetic aspirations, such as they may have been, and
became insufficiently appreciated by those whose estimation valued most.. Sometimes, this anger or sadness and turns inward, the way it may have
tragically with the brother of G. Crumb (another denizen of SF in this period) maybe it turned outward…….

Thanks for linking this.

One of the most tantalizing aspects of the Z. case, is how much was information provided in or on his letters (including postage!) and how little has been learned. Did he love his mother? Hate his father? Have a child, son or daughter? If so, was Z a homosexual, latent or not? How would any of this square, exactly, with what actually has been known about serial killers, they blend in. And this fellow had blended in, apparently, pretty damn, good regardless of his predispositions (other than homicidal).

I prefer to cut here with the razor of Occam: Z likely worked or lived in or around SF. Z was a sociopath. Z knew lots of SF locales; Telegraph Hill, Camera Obscura, and Vallejo up north, where also could have lived (or worked). He also went after young people, or relatively young people (like Paul Stine), hunted them, then killed them. He was remorseless, sadistic, with a knowledge of film and music, and a certain loathing of the social upheaval of the late 60s.
This may have been because the focus of the "flower children" generation bypassed Z’s own aesthetic aspirations, such as they may have been, and
became insufficiently appreciated by those whose estimation valued most.. Sometimes, this anger or sadness and turns inward, the way it may have
tragically with the brother of G. Crumb (another denizen of SF in this period) maybe it turned outward…….

Day do don’t day? (read it with a Merseyside accent).

And he did. I wonder if there’s a way to extract from what we have, a possible picture of what he could have been blending into. I suppose that’s what we’re doing but I’m thinking from the perspective and theme of blending.

I think there’s a thread in that on it’s own. Blending seems to have been something quite prevalent in his actions. Even as the Zodiac personae.

Traveller1, thanks for your response. On reflection, I did not mean to be too sharp with my fellow posters, I simply wanted in my own inputs (however speculative) as other posters here, strive to: (1) move the discussion forward, from the "Howard West, Re-Animator", loner, malcontent,dissector-of-small animals" view of Z (the route which Graysmith and several authors, alas, fell into). By all appearances, Z. may never appeared to his contemporaries, any more, or less "weird" than anyone else. (2) Establish some basic "rules of thumb" especially going with what we know (or believe is known) about the Z. attacks. (Ex: they occurred often around holidays, or time periods (where co-workers would not have noticed (as above) any prolonged or unusual absences; familiarity with SF landmarks; neat, or "military" physical features, and so on.)

I think it’s very likely that even if he didn’t quite blend in then we can assume at a bare minimum he wasn’t sticking out like a sore thumb. He probably looked harmless and was mostly ignored by the locals wherever he lived. I doubt he had any real friends (and I’m thinking he felt like an outcast) otherwise you’d think someone would have caught on to what he was doing at the time. One misplaced sheet of paper, one nosy friend, one person remembering their ol’ buddy who was into ciphers, one family member poking around where they shouldn’t… and he would have been undone.

Re: Profiling of the Zodiac Killer

Unread postby regret » Tue Feb 04, 2014 8:10 pm
I think it’s very likely that even if he didn’t quite blend in then we can assume at a bare minimum he wasn’t sticking out like a sore thumb. He probably looked harmless and was mostly ignored by the locals wherever he lived. I doubt he had any real friends (and I’m thinking he felt like an outcast) otherwise you’d think someone would have caught on to what he was doing at the time. One misplaced sheet of paper, one nosy friend, one person remembering their ol’ buddy who was into ciphers, one family member poking around where they shouldn’t… and he would have been undone.

This entire post is for the most part a mirror image of my POI. I will say it again even knowing many on this site have expressed how much you dislike it when I say "I am 100% sure my POI is the ZK". So if you don’t want to hear me say…. "I know for sure its Barry Wysling", I will make it easy, quit describing him. There are intelligent people on this site, but, nobody seems to want to discuss or research all the circumstantial evidence, and things in common BW has with Zodiac? You keep coming up with little mistakes I make, or tell me how I lose respect from others by saying I am sure he is the ZK. I guess I am naive to how many men were in the Bay Area that had…..I will pick a few, monotone voice, 10 1/2 shoe size, obsession with blue, 4 marriages, makes their wife live in a separate residence, has two homes that fit the radian/Mt. Diablo map, loved the Mikado, matches the description, background in criminology-military-Law Enforcement, was stationed next to Riverside, a direct connection the Pythians, attended S F colledge throughout the 60’s, had the name of his boat and the Pythian initials in the 340, his uncle, is a famous writer/editor, wrote and edited books about murder and serial killers working closely with Thomas Mann, {Hans Wysling], was a loaner, His birth sign, Does anyone want to give me a honest best guess how many men were living in the Bay Area that fit these as well as the profile?