Zodiac wasn’t a narcissist. Read the letter where he mentions he wasn’t responsible for something. He says he wouldn’t intrude on someone else’s territory. This isn’t narcissism. Narcissists don’t even consider other people.

Fair point, plus his morbid sense of humor might be untrue to self-serious narcissism. We can at least settle on pure antisocial personality.

I think Zodiac was an outcast whom his peers laughed at as a teenager. I think he may have been emotionally-hurt, probably rejected by a girl and this is what caused him to hunt couples. He envied what they had. However, for him to do this means he realised he would never have relationships (otherwise he’d simply carry on trying). So at some point he realised he was different and gave up, "lashing" out.

If he gave up it means he must have had quite a severe personality disorder (even weirdos find love, so why did Zodiac quit so early?). He had a high level of self-awareness.

I would be surprised if his first victim wasn’t a girl who rejected him (Bates?).

My reasoning for the "peers laughed at" is because later on it’s very important that he is feared. He was probably thinking all those people who mocked him as a teenager weren’t mocking him anymore. If this is true, I would expect a few of his kills to be personal. After he gained enough confidence he may have gone back to his childhood area and taken revenge on his bullies/enemies. These kills may not look Zodiac-like in nature. In fact, Zodiac would have preferred these kills to be un-Zodiac so no clues lead back to him (Zodiac can get away killing strangers without a connection, but personal kills are riskier).

Watches Mindhunter. Reads a couple serial killer books.
Now thinks they can come up with complete profiles on serial killers like they are a 2019 version of John Douglas.

Watches Mindhunter. Reads a couple serial killer books.
Now thinks they can come up with complete profiles on serial killers like they are a 2019 version of John Douglas.

A forum dedicated to a serial killer case is interested in psychological profiling methods, colour me shocked!

Zodiac wasn’t a narcissist. Read the letter where he mentions he wasn’t responsible for something. He says he wouldn’t intrude on someone else’s territory. This isn’t narcissism. Narcissists don’t even consider other people.

Fair point, plus his morbid sense of humor might be untrue to self-serious narcissism. We can at least settle on pure antisocial personality.

Head -> desk.
Narcissism defined as : PSYCHOLOGY,
selfishness, involving a sense of entitlement, a lack of empathy, and a need for admiration, as characterizing a personality type.

“narcissists don’t even consider other people” You mean before or after Zodiac murdered people in cold blood?

My opinion is admittedly simplistic. I happen to believe that the man who murdered Cheri Bates was a Riverside native who eventually moved to the Bay Area. According to The Confession (which I believe he wrote) he’d been rebuffed by Bates, which enraged him. Her murder was rooted in his obtaining revenge, but surprise! He enjoyed it! So much so that he murdered again. And again… .

I believe he was one of the workers at the collage , or someone who worked with Cheri Jo’s father?
He may have had a grudge against her father and to punish him, he killed Cheri Jo. (My suspect went after my children to get to me.)

Sending Joseph Bates that cruel letter, was telling I think? The confession letter was a ruse to make the police and her father think he was a student who was re -buffed. I doubt Cheri Jo knew of him before that evening. I am pretty sure Zodiac was far too old for Cheri Jo. about 28 yrs old at that time. He probably stalked her for a while, until he felt comfortable executing his plan. I do not think she was his first victim, he probably had killed a few times before? 1963 in Santa Barbara, 1964 San Diego and perhaps more that we don’t know about in 1965?

By 1966 he had built his concordance up enough to start writing about himself. He may have grown up in southern Calif., had a domineering mother who was extremely cruel to him, his father perhaps out of his life at a young age. He had some sort of a disfigurement that made it difficult for him to have girl friends. He resented couples who were in a relationship, those became his main targets. He probably had many run- ins with the law starting at a very young age , at lease one of those times he was not responsible and built a hatred towards the police.

I do not think that he was ever in the military, he was more than likely listed as 4-F, but was a want a be and wore military clothing such as shoes.

He may have been under the care of a few psychiatrists over several years , Dr. Edward Adams being one of those doctors. Zodiac did send a threat to that doctor on Oct 12th 1970 ,the doctor thought he knew who the writer may have been. I would like to see who that was, or a list for who were his patients? If that letter was from Zodiac ,that tells me Zodiac lived somewhere closer to where the Doctors office was.( Not San Francisco ) One of my suspects lived in Berkeley at that time.
I wonder if Dr Adams was a court appointed doctor , for something Zodiac had done that deemed him mentally ill?

Zodiac wasn’t a narcissist. Read the letter where he mentions he wasn’t responsible for something. He says he wouldn’t intrude on someone else’s territory. This isn’t narcissism. Narcissists don’t even consider other people.

Fair point, plus his morbid sense of humor might be untrue to self-serious narcissism. We can at least settle on pure antisocial personality.

Head -> desk.
Narcissism defined as : PSYCHOLOGY,
selfishness, involving a sense of entitlement, a lack of empathy, and a need for admiration, as characterizing a personality type.

“narcissists don’t even consider other people” You mean before or after Zodiac murdered people in cold blood?

You said:

Narcissism defined as : PSYCHOLOGY,
selfishness

and I said:

He says he wouldn’t intrude on someone else’s territory.

i.e he was not selfish….

So how could Zodiac be a narcissist if you admit narcissists are selfish and yet Zodiac clearly show signs of being the opposite of selfish?

(Bit of advice: read properly before mocking posts. Saves embarrassment)

Zodiac was not known to be a truthful person, so for him to say he wouldn’t intrude on someone else’s territory,has to be a lie because he intruded on the Atlanta child murders.
According to his letter claiming that he was responsible.
John Douglas believes that at least 12 of those children were the work of someone other than Wayne Williams. ( The MO was very different.)

Lol, i apologise oxf but your notion is basically stupid.
When Zodiacs bullet invaded the territory of Stines head for his own egotistical reasons is what to you? not selfish? Someone can appear to be the most altruistic individual and still be a narcissist.

And so, he was most certainly a narcissist or would have rated very highly as such.

I have no reciprocal advice for you as frankly it seems futile.

Lol, i apologise oxf but your notion is basically stupid.
When Zodiacs bullet invaded the territory of Stines head for his own egotistical reasons is what to you? not selfish? Someone can appear to be the most altruistic individual and still be a narcissist.

And so, he was most certainly a narcissist or would have rated very highly as such.

I have no reciprocal advice for you as frankly it seems futile.

You don’t understand what a narcissist is, evident by this post:

“narcissists don’t even consider other people” You mean before or after Zodiac murdered people in cold blood?

You think anyone who commits murder is a narcissist. No.

Most murderers are not narcissists. Narcissists don’t realise they have a problem. Zodiac knew he had a problem. He had a level of awareness beyond what a narcissist would possess.

Zodiac is more delusional than narcissistic.

It’s hard to label anyone correctly one way or another especially from such a distance. The Zodiac categorically appears to be narcissistic which would be a lot closer to the truth and offers a better viewpoint of who and what he was.

A better viewpoint to counter what i’m saying might be found by highlighting the Zodiacs usage of the word “murderer” to describe himself with out offering any apparent defence or rational as to why he is.

With that said i find it incorrect to highlight any segment of his writings to figure out who he (and not the zodiac) was. His writings in my view were skillfully constructed in a multitude of ways and so i think that only the totality of his writings should be considered in the pursuit of understanding him.

The problem with analyzing letters is, he could be more normal than we think and completely faking the insanity.

I’m not saying a serial-killer is normal, obviously not, but he could have been exaggerating his condition in the letters.

The problem with analyzing letters is, he could be more normal than we think and completely faking the insanity.

I’m not saying a serial-killer is normal, obviously not, but he could have been exaggerating his condition in the letters.

Yeah, I think we imagine such killers to all be psychopaths or sociopaths etc but in reality, I think someone like the Zodiac was far more normal than what we would like to believe.