Good points. As far as I know, the police never ruled out a "Team Zodiac," so I wonder why the FBI or another agency hasn’t attempted a team profile, so to speak. Unless someone has and I’ve missed it. Or, do profiles have to be limited to just one offender for some reason?

I’m certainly no profiling expert, but I have read a lot of Douglas’ work on numerous cases and I believe the reason he doesn’t discuss the possibility of multiple UNSUBs in the Zodiac case is that most of the behavioral evidence, in his mind, points away from this as a possibility. Given that Z routinely brags about these crimes, even taking credit for several that are believed to be perpetrated by others, it’s unlikely that such a narcissistic individual would voluntarily share credit with another individual (or individuals). He was keen on displaying his superior intelligence and the highs he got from taunting the police were probably something he’d avoid sharing. Then again, I don’t speak for Douglas, so what do I know?

What I don’t understand is if you are not a profiler who actually has credentials, works in the field and has solved scores of cold cases in your life, why are you telling everyone "your profile" of the Zodiac killer? If I saw a show on how a surgeon threads a catheter through the internal carotid artery into the Circle of Willis to fix a berry aneurysm, I am not going to write a post on how I, someone with no training in the field of neurosurgery, would fix a berry aneurysm (and I even studied neuroanatomy years ago).

This is not directed at any one individual. I am just always perplexed as to why amateurs feel that profiling is some pastime like fly fishing and that basically anyone can write a profile just by having an opinion. If you’re not a profiler, do everyone a favor and stick to fly fishing. Trust me. I have known Richard Walter, who does solve cold cases for a living, for nine years and I still cannot profile a lick (as he always reminded me when I used to try my hand at it years ago).

I certainly understand the mentality behind this sentiment (and can support it to an extent), but I don’t see the harm in letting amateurs take a crack and offer fresh insights. After all, the Hardens were amateurs and they managed to crack Z’s cipher before the NSA, FBI, CIA and other professionals with more training. The entire science behind profiling has been created through countless interviews and other research by individuals like Walter, Keppel, Douglas, Hazelwood, Ressler, etc., but there may be offenders out there who escape detection because they don’t "fit the mold" that traditional offenders/profiling techniques would suggest.

I understand the point you’re making, Mike, but after 50 years of people spinning their tires on this case, I’m always open to investigating new leads (provided the people doing this “profiling” are basing their ideas off of hard evidence and not trying to jam a square peg in a round hole). While it may create some garbage to sift through, someone out there may come up with a unique perspective that leads somewhere new.

… but after 50 years of people spinning their tires on this case, I’m always open to investigating new leads (provided the people doing this “profiling” are basing their ideas off of hard evidence and not trying to jam a square peg in a round hole). While it may create some garbage to sift through, someone out there may come up with a unique perspective that leads somewhere new.

By its very nature, the Z case breeds endless speculation. While it can serve a useful purpose (as you’ve stated above), it sometimes really clouds things up, particularly when a myth has become fact. At this point, however, I doubt speculation could hurt the case any more than it has been, due in large part to LE’s mishandling of such a complex case. Sure, we can sift through the rubble, but it can get tiresome – especially when the same old speculation on certain issues rears its head from time to time. That’s something that drove Butterfield off the deep end and, to a certain extent, I understand his frustration.

Sure, we can sift through the rubble, but it can get tiresome – especially when the same old speculation on certain issues rears its head from time to time. That’s something that drove Butterfield off the deep end and, to a certain extent, I understand his frustration.

I don’t disagree. A lot of what we hear these days are just recycled rumors and theory, some of which has little or no foundation in reality. That said, as long as people can keep their theoretical conversations separated from the facts of the case, I’m usually fine with it. The problem is that keeping the facts separate is usually where this kind of theorizing causes trouble: people present wild speculation as fact, which gets repeated ad nauseum until it takes a lot of extra effort just to disprove the claims. I certainly don’t fault you or Mike R for frustrations with novice profiling, but I also don’t want to discourage anyone from offering up less-traditional solutions for the behavioral evidence, motive, etc., especially when traditional profiling techniques haven’t offered too many leads that have checked out.

Say someone profiles a poi and thinks they are positive, just as all the others before now. Is there an active LE investigation or not?

What course of action would you advise such a person take? I wouldn’t think writing a book for publication would be the answer but then that is what the retired CHP did, I believe. All the other authors evidentally were convinced they’d solved the crime but their guys were dead.

What about someone who was still alive?

I find it unlikely that LE would get heavily involved with any suspect at this stage if the case is based on profiling alone. They’d probably need something substantial, physical evidence of some kind or other. Or at least a circumstantial case that is stronger than anything I’ve come across so far.

There is so much noise in the Zodiac case – so many (no doubt well meaning – at least most of them) amateurs having their very own POIs, so many people who aren’t even researchers who contact LE with tips (most of which are bound to be useless), etc.

My guess is that it would take a) a compelling and objectively stated circumstantial case, b) something at least approaching tangible evidence and c) a representative of LE who actually gives a damn.

Norse…..

I agree….It will take physical evidence, Stine’s shirt, wallet, something along that level….I’ve always felt that way though. Today, I think short of some 70+ year old guy walking into a police station with evidence in hand, there certainly will never be a trial. It would be impossible, even if they had matching prints from Stine’s cab and the Napa phone booth, so what? Public places. Wouldn’t mean a thing. How would it work at this point? Where were you on Sept. 27, 1969, "how the hell do I know", would be the answer. The State would have to prove where he was, and at the specific time of the crimes. I do hold out hope, that Z’s alive and has the evidence still, or even if he has died and left it behind and the folks that went through his stuff are holding it, haven’t seen it as yet, and would do the right thing and turn it in. But they might not want to do that either.

Moving forward in the investigation, we must now focus on suspects who have demonstrated that they are true power-assertive personalities in their everyday lives. In other words, the list of suspects essentially has to be inverted: those who were previously considered ⠀œprime suspects under the old profile must now go to the bottom of the list, while those power-assertive personalities who were considered ⠀œunlikely suspects€ or €œabove suspicion must be moved towards the top of the list. Power-assertive personalities in everyday life can include police officers, political power brokers and successful businessmen. These are generally people who, while they truly do fit Richard Walter€™s profile of the Zodiac killer, would have been almost completely transparent in the investigation to date because of their job descriptions, wealth, station in life, status in the community, etc.

"Interesting how Barry Wysling Police Officer" Once again, fits in with what Richard Walters has to say. Most everyone has been telling me "Zodiac could not have been a cop ….." Is that because your POI does not fit the "Power-Assertive personality?"
I hope one day someone will listen to the person who does not even want to be involved in this case! Yet my POI continues to come through the scrutiny, the test of time, etc., etc.,

It may be that no matter what I say or can prove, you will never consider Barry Wysling is the Zodiac Killer?

Yet most are so sure he is not, then just prove it? If BW is not ZK, it should be easy? Not in your opinion, with proof!

Zodiac killer, would have been almost completely transparent in the investigation to date because of their job descriptions, wealth, station in life, status in the community, etc.
Barrett Wysling AKAZK?

Join club of people who think, without a doubt, their guy is Zodiac CaptainFun!

We continually receive posts from people with comments like yours. Pretty much offended by the fact we don’t see it like you see it.

Cops WERE considered. Lots of men were. I don’t think we throw anyone out, or to the bottom of the list because they weren’t "power assertive".

To me, it’s just too easy you found a knife in the wall, someone says basically "that looks like Zodiac’s"…..and viola! It was! What are the chances of that?

Someone said it looked like Zodiac’s knife and so therefore, you went looking for clues to make him fit Zodiac’s profile.

Someone said it looked like Zodiac’s knife and so therefore, you went looking for clues to make him fit Zodiac’s profile.

And this was the point I was agreeing with Mike R about. Professional profilers usually go into a case and purposefully ask NOT to be told information about any potential suspects because they don’t want their profile biased by the opinions of others. You can involuntarily develop tunnel vision and try to pigeon-hole your favorite suspect into circumstances where he looks guilty, which leads to confirmation bias. It’s an easy trap to fall into.

Yet most are so sure he is not, then just prove it? If BW is not ZK, it should be easy? Not in your opinion, with proof!

Well, that isn’t how it works. The burden of proof must be on the accuser here, surely. If you asked me to prove, beyond doubt, that my best friend’s uncle is NOT the Zodiac killer, I might actually struggle to do that. Does that suggest my best friend’s uncle is the Zodiac? Not really.

For what it’s worth your suspect sounds like a very fishy character – but the great majority of fishy characters aren’t the Zodiac killer.

I agree with Tahoe, by the way – someone fitting a certain profile is, in itself, neither here nor there. It seems that most suspects in the case do fit a certain "cliche" profile (loner with issues and low education, etc.) and to suggest Z may have been very different from that is an interesting angle. But it’s just an angle at the end of the day.