The authors reached a controversial conclusion– that the Zodiac suffered from multiple personality disorder.

Sure.

I’ve read TITZS. Even have a digital copy on my computer. But Kelleher’s diagnosis of genuine MPD is…wonky, imo, although I’m not a psychologist.

Really, just seems like a cheap way for Mike to say The Zodiac was a nice guy who "really" didn’t know he was doing bad things because his mind had disassociated from his actions. Not really feeling that one, tbh, largely because…The Zodiac seemed quite aware of what he was doing, and seemed to enjoy it. To me that just sounds like a person so full of hatred and rage, he enjoyed killing. He even said as much in his 408. "I enjoy killing people". Perhaps that was "The Zodiac" personality speaking, and not "the normal guy", but…reading his letters, I don’t get the feeling his mind was disintegrated or disassociated from his actions, and given that he carried on what most of us believe was a normal weekday, it’s rather difficult to accept the idea The Zodiac personality conveniently came online right about the time "the normal guy" was punching the clock for dinner.

Reminds me of The Thirteenth Floor (1999), if you’ve ever seen that film, wherein people from the "overworld" download into digital/simulated alt-personae at all the wrong times. You see this little flash in the eyes of the alt-personae, a visual cue to the audience, signifying a change of personalities.

Anyway….It’s not even known if DID/MPD is a real psychological phenomenon and there’s huge controversy as to its nature and extent, or whether it even exists.

My opinion: The Zodiac was just a mean, angry, hateful and demented/deranged SOB who eventually found considerable relief in killing, and taunting and manipulating the press, the public, the police. Sure, he had problems, but to say he did what he did because some other aspect of his mind (read: personality) was in control is just…wonky.

Basically Mike is saying The Zodiac possessed two personalities…the normal guy, and The Zodiac.

Maybe….So was The Red Phantom a third personality? Or, more simply, did The Zodiac simply operate as a terrorist with a goofy nom de guerre and a need to make demands upon the populace he was terrorizing? Did he do what he did because he witnessed all the press attention Manson (who appeared after BRS) and more recent lunatics were receiving and, having spent a rather long life brutally isolated and marginalized, felt such a tactic would finally render him heard and "seen" upon his chosen targets? The Bay Area was, at the time, a hot-bed of violent, attention-seeking citizens…

I would agree The Zodiac suffered from some severe psychological issues, but…rarely have I seen or known of a serial killer, not even Richard Trenton Chase or Jeffrey Dahmer, who possessed, or was possessed by, more than one genuine "personality".

Wonky. Or hinky, as they said in The Fugitive (1993).

Anyway…I love The Red Phantom letter. How many of you read that as a bit of classical projection? Everything old Zodiac is saying about Count Marco is really entirely about himself. You just know, then, The Zodiac received some mental "assistance" sometime between 1971 and 1974. One must wonder if he was forcibly committed, and if so, was his detainment the result of a crime one could locate in a Bay Area paper?

JMO, as always.

Hi Morf,

I doubt Walter was one of those profilers. What you are saying is that we should just lump all profilers together in one incompetent mass, as if there is no pecking order. Can a guy in Single A ball hit Clayton Kershaw? I doubt it. Same principle. There are major league and minor league profilers.

It is funny that you bring up the Washington DC Sniper. Walter feels that he was also a power-assertive killer (Muhammad), which I am sure is much different from what the "other" profilers were saying in 2002. The difference between Zodiac and Muhammad is that Z apparently had an alternative source of power to which he could turn in 1969, so he could stop killing. Muhammad had no such thing, so killing was his sole source of power and he could not and did not stop until he was apprehended.

Regardless of what you think of Walter, when you look at all the traits that Z and a power-assertive killer share, you come to realize that it is a better profile than Douglas/Kelleher’s "loser compensating for his feelings of inadequacy.".

Mike

I personally don’t care what kind of killer z was, the point for me is, he was a Killer, and very disturbed. Some people value profiler’s opinions more than others. I try to remain neutral when looking at suspects,as to not pigeon hole myself into a certain type of Suspect,and to trying to get them to fit a certain profile. I have looked at young Suspects, old suspects, married suspects, single suspects, and Suspects from all kinds of financial backgrounds,and employment fields,from military, to teachers,to Students,and so on. In the end, it’s always nice to imagine who z really was, or come up with a profile, but I would rather follow the clues. If I can prove a guy wrote about the same things Z did, or attended college at RCC and knew Cheri Bates, or is confirmed to have been at the scene of a z crime at just about the time it happened, those things are worth looking into,regardless of where those people fall on the Z profile scale

I personally don’t care what kind of killer z was, the point for me is, he was a Killer, and very disturbed. Some people value profiler’s opinions more than others. I try to remain neutral when looking at suspects,as to not pigeon hole myself into a certain type of Suspect,and to trying to get them to fit a certain profile. I have looked at young Suspects, old suspects, married suspects, single suspects, and Suspects from all kinds of financial backgrounds,and employment fields,from military, to teachers,to Students,and so on. In the end, it’s always nice to imagine who z really was, or come up with a profile, but I would rather follow the clues. If I can prove a guy wrote about the same things Z did, or attended college at RCC and knew Cheri Bates, or is confirmed to have been at the scene of a z crime at just about the time it happened, those things are worth looking into,regardless of where those people fall on the Z profile scale

Definitely.

I personally don’t care what kind of killer z was, the point for me is, he was a Killer, and very disturbed. Some people value profiler’s opinions more than others. I try to remain neutral when looking at suspects,as to not pigeon hole myself into a certain type of Suspect,and to trying to get them to fit a certain profile. I have looked at young Suspects, old suspects, married suspects, single suspects, and Suspects from all kinds of financial backgrounds,and employment fields,from military, to teachers,to Students,and so on. In the end, it’s always nice to imagine who z really was, or come up with a profile, but I would rather follow the clues. If I can prove a guy wrote about the same things Z did, or attended college at RCC and knew Cheri Bates, or is confirmed to have been at the scene of a z crime at just about the time it happened, those things are worth looking into,regardless of where those people fall on the Z profile scale

Bingo

Again, I’d love to totally elaborate, but in all honesty…I really don’t think you, or anyone else, would or could ever understand, no matter how well or how much I tried to explain, and it’s a foregone conclusion that if I did, all I’d receive is scorn and ridicule, per the demonstrable physics of human nature.

There is nothing new under the sun. There really isn’t. Not that I’m prompting an internet disclosure, that would not be wise.

I personally don’t care what kind of killer z was, the point for me is, he was a Killer, and very disturbed. Some people value profiler’s opinions more than others. I try to remain neutral when looking at suspects,as to not pigeon hole myself into a certain type of Suspect,and to trying to get them to fit a certain profile. I have looked at young Suspects, old suspects, married suspects, single suspects, and Suspects from all kinds of financial backgrounds,and employment fields,from military, to teachers,to Students,and so on. In the end, it’s always nice to imagine who z really was, or come up with a profile, but I would rather follow the clues. If I can prove a guy wrote about the same things Z did, or attended college at RCC and knew Cheri Bates, or is confirmed to have been at the scene of a z crime at just about the time it happened, those things are worth looking into,regardless of where those people fall on the Z profile scale

Yeah that is well put. I pretty much feel the same way and I think that’s what we try to do here in general, explore everything even if it appears fruitless it might assist somewhere down the line if just to rule aspects in or out. Plus it sounds all grown up and sensible, the perfect defense for spending so much of our lives looking at this case

Even as I peruse and reply to these posts I’m watching the 2005 Zodiac film (not the Fincher one).

There is some merit into what JR is saying. The problem that is that to truly understand certain types of behavior you need to either demonstrate similar behavioral patterns or experience them. For example if we start talking about someone who is diagnosed with borderline personality disorder some may in understand in theory all the aspects to cluster B disorder, but experiencing the actions/behaviors of a cluster B disordered person in a relationship gives a person unique insight into their thought process that cannot be obtained in any other way.

The bigger issue is that cluster B disorders can fool/trick professionals and often do. That’s not to say the professional doesn’t know what they are doing or that random Joe on the street knows better, but rather that there needs to be some temperance and questioning that should occur.

The problem with Z crimes is that there is so much in the "lore" of the crimes that is an uncertainty.

In my opinion Zodiac enjoys taunting because it stems from narcissistic desire to show intellectual superiority (no brainer, eh?), but it’s even more than that and it can go one of two ways. There’s the revenge factor to show everyone who teased you mocked you that they were wrong. Then there’s the desire to just f with people because it’s amusing and you gain pleasure from creating chaos,fear, or any other such similar feelings.

The only impression that Zodiac might have had some remorse is the Tarbox incident which we don’t know if it’s even true, and even if it is it certainly could have been an event by Z to enhance the legend so to speak.

The reason that these profilers are so good is because of all the work of detectives for many years solving cases and writing about these killers. I read old detective magazines. I buy them in NJ. I guy down there has the whole shebang. I’ve read detective novels from Poe to Doyle. The way these cases are solved is anything from hard work and thorough investigating, to just plain luck, a good break. They got Son of Sam because the detective pulled all parking tickets from the area of one of the murders. It was very hard to find places to park over there and he got bingo. Very nice work, to say the least. They had all kinds of fancy profiles for Berkowitz but they didn’t help catch him. I think I have a good idea what the Zodiac was all about.

Ha well I’m not a profiler and only took three college psych courses, but thought it might be fun to throw up a profile here bc Psychology and profiling have always interested me. So bare in mind this is all Is based off of my personal perceptions about Z according to things I’ve loosely studied. I don’t think anyone needs to be an expert to share their opinion/profile of who they see Z as. Besides, profiles like Z’s are simply theories concerning an unknown suspect based off of the evidence at hand. – grain of salt so IMO:

Zodiac revealed much about his psychological profile through his letters, his methods of attack, and his preferred victim’s profiles.

The Zodiac is motivated by a false grandiose sense of self. This individual has delusions that lead him to believe he is superior and should be recognized as such. Through his grandiose delusions he believes he is related to events that are actually of no relation to him and overestimates his role in these events. He devises his own style of speaking/writing, at times making up his own words/symbols indicating there is an inner world he has created apart from conventional reality. The seemingly mysterious context of the ciphers is analogous to the mysterious context of his mentality. Zodiac’s eagerness to have others in "normal" society solve his ciphers demonstrates his desire to be understood by normal society.

His letters often are very descriptive for himself and he often uses the first person of "I" when writing. He goes into greater detail about himself than he does his surroundings. There’s a tendency to explain or contextualize his own reality and a lack of ability to bring up the emotions/reality of others – he goes into greater detail about himself, but when other objects/people are mentioned the writing semantically diminishes. When he references a reality or mindset outside of his own he is limited and must source it to something not organic to himself.

The Zodiac has a speech pattern that is more emotionless/flat and measured. He has misappropriated and misconstrued popular religious symbols/ideologies and shows interest in the occult/pagan beliefs. He shows signs of fantastical thinking patterns, imagining scenarios in which he is a god and individuals are his slaves that give him complete attention and serve whatever sadistic purpose he feels is appropriate.

The above descriptions btw fit schizophrenia very closely.

http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/cond … izophrenia

The Zodiac’s interest in reading the news and being referenced in news is subconsciously motivated by his desire to connect with a society he himself does not understand and his grandiose need to gain their attention. His IQ is fairly high and despite his misunderstanding of normal societal cues/behaviors he may employ adequate enough logic skills to wear a "mask" of normality.

He is atypically more aware of normal social behavior than most individuals suffering from psych/behavioral disorders through his interests in the humanities/community/culture/literature/current events and perhaps these interest were attempts at making sense of the world around him. He may often fantasize that he is a character in a story or in the news and over personalize his relation to said character or person.

He likely cannot fully assimilate socially the way he wishes due to his abnormal behavior and obscene/obsessive fantasies that take much effort to control. But AGAIN I must stress that at times he is intelligent enough to pass himself off as normal superficially until one becomes closer with him and realizes his abnormal behavior. This yearning to control himself in a society he cannot properly interact with pushes him to seek out control in other ways such as devising elaborate orchestrated puzzles and scenarios that may confuse others, but make perfect sense to himself. His inability to connect with the conventional world has driven him instead to force the conventional world to attempt to connect with his warped reality.

The Zodiac likely had issues with both emotional and physical intimacy in his social interactions. His psychological state would make him appear odd to most people and there would be little to no disarming qualities attributed to him during his interactions with others. Likely this made finding friends and romantic partners difficult for him and resulted in the Zodiac being a loner. This did not mean that the Zodiac sought to be a loner. His attempts at forced intimacy with others is evident in the personalized nature of his attacks, specifically upon women, but not limited to women. Forced intimacy is also demonstrated in his correspondences to unwitting recipients (typically male). The motivation for these forced accounts is likely past/present rejections by peers. In fact, much of Zodiacs motivation was likely brought on by rejection in multiple forms (abandonment by parents, rejection by peers, rejection by institutions etc).

There is the wonder as to why the Zodiac would seek a connection with the very society he was attacking. This search for this connection/intimacy points to a deeper emotional component that is operating here.

The Zodiac never brings up his family in his letters because likely he does not have many connections to them. If the Zodiac had a family that checked in with him he likely would not have been as successful at keeping a low profile. They likely would have began to suspect something about him. This shows me that either he was neglected/rejected by his family and was even possibly an orphan/Foster child at some points in his life. He also has likely no wife or children of his own either. If he had siblings they were likely not very present either. We find through his attacks that he is desperate for a "connection" or intimacy more with women, but not limited to women. This indicates Zodiac’s mother was missed more than his father – he felt slighted/angered a little more in her not having a role in his life, though his father was also absent.

The nature of the attacks on male victims indicate that his father was someone who he had varying degrees of feelings toward ranging from apathy to disdain. He taunts men and mails his letters to male members of LE and newspapers, as well as the father of his first female murder victim.

I must consider that the letter to Mr. Bates/LE may have some subconscious messages from Zodiac to his father. Thus, Zodiac seeks the attention of Mr. bates to "taunt" him (in Z’s subconscious it’s his father) and make him feel guilty for not saving a life. Perhaps Zodiac felt his father had a chance to save Z himself or someone else and neglected/rejected to do so, causing Z to view his father as weak, impotent, and distant. He would view his male victims and peers in like, as weak and impotent and unwilling to pay him the attention he deserved. Z views himself as more capable and powerful. He seeks to manipulate men in order to gain attention from them and fulfill the power/intimacy/attention he craves and that he never received from his father. The only threat the men serve is that they could possibly take the attention from the female/public off of Z or that the men themselves will stop paying attention to Z, but this is a considerable threat to Zodiac that in his mind merits death. It is possible that the zodiac may have been bisexual.

His hatred for authority/police may not be solely sourced to a hatred for patriarchal authority as is common, but I also cannot deny that his hatred for an institution he viewed as impotent and incapable of carrying out its function may have been analogous to his father/guardians inability to rectify problems in his life and provide assistance in some way. This assistance he felt he was slighted on (whether publicly or from his father/guardians) could have been due to a myriad of things such as no attempts made to protect/help him despite a neglected home life growing up, neglect in providing him adequate mental healthcare, or the feeling of an unfounded penalty that he felt he did not deserve. None the less, his father and public institutions are both viewed by him in the same light: dysfunctional and unable to provide the adequate care/services it was originally intended to provide. He was likely more intelligent than his father, evidenced in how he believes he can "outsmart" authority.

The Zodiac likely was raised or brought up in a household or community that was predominantly Christian. This would explain his Christian references. He possibly was misunderstood or demonized by religious individuals who misconstrued his unorthodox beliefs and behaviors as being evil rather than the result of a mental illness. This leaves a strong possibility that he was shunned or neglected by any religious family/peers he had. likely it was a more legalized sect of Christianity such as Catholicism or The Mormon Church.

He also attempts to give new personal context to literary classics and theater. This satiates his grandiosity and also helps him feel a semblance of connection to something from a world who’s logic/values he typically does not comprehend. It is likely that even his references to culture are an attempt to have normal society understand/connect with him based on a point of reference they can source. He distinguishes very early on that he is not sick, but is insane. The usage of a clinical term to describe himself and his correcting the reader to understand he is not "sick" shows he is aware his behavior is abnormal, malingering, and uncontrollable. It is likely he had a clinical diagnosis pointing toward insanity at some point prior to his letter.

Likely his motivation for the crimes was rejection. He is partially guided by delusions of granduer perpetuated by a personality disorder such as schizophrenia or schozotypal and a possible comorbidity with a mood disorder such as bipolar disorder. attention seeking behavioral disorder and antisocial behavior disorder aspects are both heavily present as well. Aspects of Narcissistic personality disorder in the form of a superiority complex, more specifically in form of a "God Complex", is also heavily present in his personality.

There is likely an issue with Zodac and how he was environmentally connected to his upbringing due to being rejected/neglected by parents/guardians/authority and not fitting in with peers because of odd/ abnormal behavior resulting from psychological (and maybe even physiological) illness. This all perpetuated the killers need later in life for attention, intimacy, and superiority.

The life expectancy of individuals suffering from mental illness has been proven to be reduced considerably in comparison to individuals who do not suffer from mental illness. Due to the severely dysfunctional nature of Zodiac’s psychiatric state he likely is no longer alive. Schizophrenics are considered one of the most at risk candidates for premature death. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2656262/

Most likely was Caucasian (due to his interests in literature and popular culture and race of his victims) and was anywhere from late twenties to early 40’s at most as his awareness of popular culture was not far off indicating someone of the younger generation. He referred to the teens/young adults he killed as kids, so he was definitely not a peer or in his early 20’s, but older at least in his late 20’s and at most his early 40’s. This leaves the average mean of his age around 33 years old.
IMO.