I am writing this mainly in response to a number of people I have come across on Facebk groups, Youtube comments and other sites and their, what seems to me to be their non distinction between "The Zodiac" – The persona we know his by and that personality that goes with it, and that of the human being hiding behind it. Now I will be the first to admit that there is no way that anyone can "know" what the man was like in real life, but we can make a fairly educated guess based on details that we do know.

The one statement that I have quoted before that I will use again is one that I believe just sums up how some people think or on what grounds they are willing to dismiss someone as a suspect on. "Larry Kane cannot be Zodiac, at least I hope not, he’s too boring". This statement implies several things:

1. That the identity of the Man ‘Zodiac’ was ultimately be reliant upon who the commenter declares worthy or exciting enough to be awarded the distinction.
2. It seem to also imply that the writer somehow associates the persona and it’s accompanying personality on paper as being the same as the man behind it in his every day life. This second assumption is the one I want to concentrate on and argue against most strongly.

I mean if the fantasy image a person has created in their minds is so important to them that they will start dismissing any and all others if tey are not exciting, flamboyant and extraverted enough. If he were the same in his life as a man as he appears while writing as his alter ego, the desire and thirst for recognition, the seemingly outgoing and opinionated type who was always driving past patrol cars shouting "Moring Pigs" then on the morning of October 12, 69 he’d be doing cartwheels along Cherry Street in his berryessa Costume. No. Here is why I think it is clear that ‘Zodiac’ the personality, was nothing at all like that of the man himself.

First of all, the very term ‘Alter-Ego’ is Latin for ‘Second Self’, and that is exactly what he created for himself, a semi-fictional character that only existed on paper with a personality. A few reasonable assumptions I think we can make if Zodiac were the accurate representation of the man himself are…
1. Someone who was such an attention seeking, bragging extrovert who, when it came to Publicity and the Media, seemed to view the Chronicle and desire to feature in it’s pages much the same way A moth would view a streetlight, how likely is it that this man, bragging about himself constantlyetc would be able to remain unaprehended to this day?
Continued below….