Yes, I think he was fully aware of his actions and their consequences, everything was planned as his sick agenda could never be argued insane, the way to see the society he is, yes guilty, the way he stared it like a game. I do not think it was a crazy tearing money or eat shit
Marcelo

You have an odd way of putting things, Dave. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I take it you’re after something more specific than an affirmation (or a denial) that there IS mens rea here?

I think most would agree – as Marcelo suggests – that Z wasn’t a complete nutter, to put it like that. He knew what he was doing. But precisely WHY he did what he did…I don’t know.

It had something to do with being recognized (with reaching a certain status, as someone people on a large scale recognized, talked about, feared). This seems obvious. And it suggests, perhaps, a perpetrator who definitely was NOT recognized to begin with.

Then again, there are aspects of Z’s behaviour which do not conform to this idea. He shows a remarkable sort of – for lack of a better word – restraint for someone who wants to shock and awe the general public.

Z the letter writer definitely knew right from wrong.

One example-

He showed this by "taking back his statement" of what he intended to do to the kids coming off the bus and offered up his reason about why he would not follow through with such an act.

A moot point if you subscribe to the notion that the killer and the letter writer were indeed one in the same.
One bares witness to the other.
[tell vilmos]

Who knows? Exhilaration combined with fear, nervous anxiety, mild dissociation, perhaps (though I lean away from multiple personality disorder diagnosis); controlled (restrained) euphoria.

A moot point if you subscribe to the notion that the killer and the letter writer were indeed one in the same.
One bares witness to the other.
[tell vilmos]

Talon- I chose to use an example in the letters as my response to his sanity. This IS why I used the term "letter writer" verses not yet giving my opinion on his knowing right and wrong in regards to a contact crime such as LB.

I am sure I could give many examples with his contact crimes as well as things he wrote in his letters in regards to proving his jaded sanity.

Zodiac’s own take on the subject was :

"I AM NOT SICK. I AM INSANE. BUT THAT WILL NOT STOP THE GAME" (The Confession letter Nov 29, 1966)

My opinon; He was neither crazy, neither insane, he knew perfectly well what he was doing, knew 100% right from wrong, but choose and got a huge kick out of doing wrong/evil, and he LOVED the attention which fed his ego distinctly.

A moot point if you subscribe to the notion that the killer and the letter writer were indeed one in the same.
One bares witness to the other.
[tell vilmos]

Talon- I chose to use an example in the letters as my response to his sanity. This IS why I used the term "letter writer" verses not yet giving my opinion on his knowing right and wrong in regards to a contact crime such as LB.

I am sure I could give many examples with his contact crimes as well as things he wrote in his letters in regards to proving his jaded sanity.

bmichelle,
Sorry for the confusion, as I was not replying to your post. It was in response to the mens rea topic by the OP.

A moot point if you subscribe to the notion that the killer and the letter writer were indeed one in the same.
One bares witness to the other.
[tell vilmos]

Talon- I chose to use an example in the letters as my response to his sanity. This IS why I used the term "letter writer" verses not yet giving my opinion on his knowing right and wrong in regards to a contact crime such as LB.

I am sure I could give many examples with his contact crimes as well as things he wrote in his letters in regards to proving his jaded sanity.

bmichelle,
Sorry for the confusion, as I was not replying to your post. It was in response to the mens rea topic by the OP.

Talon,
Thank You! and I apologize for thinking it was directed at me. My ego must be showing itself today.

Hi guys, davidfrancis here.

Thank you all for taking the interest in my latest topic of choice, “The Zodiac’s Mens Rea. What was it?”, and thank you for your replies.

1. Marclean’s comment: “Yes, I think he was fully aware of his actions and their consequences, everything was planned as his sick agenda could never be argued insane, the way to see the society he is, yes guilty, the way he stared it like a game. I do not think it was a crazy tearing money or eat shit. Marcelo”

Marcelo,

Everything you say makes perfect sense beyond a shadow of doubt and it all falls under the spectrum of the “actus reus”. I’m certain most individuals will agree with that. However, when dealing with Criminal Law, the easiest way for anyone to understand the term “mens rea” is to think of the word “intent”, or, in other words, “the Zodiac’s purpose”.

So the question now is “What was the Zodiac’s purpose?”

A few examples:

a. To kill
b. To prove a point about something or someone
c. To write a book
d. To be known as the best serial killer the world has seen
e. The creation of a “thing” (whatever the thing may be)
f. To keep a legacy going (if he was taught by another serial killer)

I hope this helps.

Thank you.

2. Norse’s comment: “You have an odd way of putting things, Dave. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I take it you’re after something more specific than an affirmation (or a denial) that there IS mens rea here? I think most would agree – as Marcelo suggests – that Z wasn’t a complete nutter, to put it like that. He knew what he was doing. But precisely WHY he did what he did…I don’t know. It had something to do with being recognized (with reaching a certain status, as someone people on a large scale recognized, talked about, feared). This seems obvious. And it suggests, perhaps, a perpetrator who definitely was NOT recognized to begin with. Then again, there are aspects of Z’s behaviour which do not conform to this idea. He shows a remarkable sort of – for lack of a better word – restraint for someone who wants to shock and awe the general public.”

Norse,

Precisely, my Atrabilious Debonair non-billionaire friend! Touché! Something he had in his mind made him pursue the actions he took. Personally, I believe (assumption not fact) it might have been a combination of all the six examples I proposed to Marclean.

Thank you.

3. bmichelle’s comment: “Z the letter writer definitely knew right from wrong. One example-
He showed this by "taking back his statement" of what he intended to do to the kids coming off the bus and offered up his reason about why he would not follow through with such an act.”

bmichelle,

You are correct with you analogy. However, his “intent/purpose” is still missing from your post.

Thank you.

4. valleylife’s comment: “Who knows? Exhilaration combined with fear, nervous anxiety, mild dissociation, perhaps (though I lean away from multiple personality disorder diagnosis); controlled (restrained) euphoria.”

valleylife,

Just like with bmichelle, all you points are valid. However, “intent/purpose” is what I’m looking for.

Thank you.

5. Theforeigner’s comment: “Zodiac’s own take on the subject was : "I AM NOT SICK. I AM INSANE. BUT THAT WILL NOT STOP THE GAME" (The Confession letter Nov 29, 1966) My opinon; He was neither crazy, neither insane, he knew perfectly well what he was doing, knew 100% right from wrong, but choose and got a huge kick out of doing wrong/evil, and he LOVED the attention which fed his ego distinctly.”

Theforeigner,

Your points add extra spice to what both bmichelle and valleylife had to say. However, think around the realm of “intent/purpose”.

Thank you.

Guys, like I mentioned to Marclean, everything you guys say makes perfect sense beyond a shadow of doubt and it all falls under the spectrum of the “actus reus”. However, when dealing with Criminal Law, the easiest way for anyone to understand the term “mens rea” is to think of the word “intent”, or, in other words, “the Zodiac’s purpose”. So the question now is “What was the Zodiac’s purpose?”

My best guess is power driven vengeful lust. Not sexual lust.. God like power lust to hold another’s life in your hand!
To have some controll in a mediocre life that gave him a reason to be. And the papers were his desert, to keep an air of superiority for as long as he could.. No reason just loved the rush. And oh what a rush for him,like a dose of smack. Once bitten forever taken.

Killing was thrilling for him. It’s how he "got his rocks off." And he liked the attention.
I actually believe that’s pretty much it. I don’t think the whole "with a girl" thing ever worked out for him.
For some men, a reliable gun that shoots loads can substitute for a certain anatomical part that may not work as well.

(Sorry if that last sentence is crude, but, hey, the question was asked. Just being honest with my opinion.)

-glurk

I believe, it was to resolve his anger over a relationship at first. But that left him hollow still, and what took its place was the empowerment that thrill and the kill/spectacle and semi fame brought him.

How’d I do DavidFrancis

Part of his intent was to draw attention.

The intent was to direct the focus on himself.

Or (possibly) redirect the public’s attention away from some known/unknown event or crime he was embarrassed about. Just speculating.

I believe Z intended or wanted to cause havoc and confusion among the public and LE. He found pleasure in disrupting LE and belittling and mocking them.

Accomplishing this made him feel like God-all powerful.

Z’s "purpose" hmmmmm maybe he did not have a clear one-maybe. He just felt inferior in some way. Maybe he was trying to find himself a place in this world. Z wanted to feel important and be heard. He sought…..and sought…and maybe never found what he wanted.

I do not believe he found "great satisfaction" in killing. Killing may have just been the best way to help in his endeavor to seek what he felt should be rightfully his- RECOGNITION

Yes. To keep it simple. His intent and purpose was to achieve RECOGNITION.