No one ever reports that Zodiac is more than 30 years old

EXCEPT FOUKE AND ZELMS WHO CANNOT EVER PROVE THEY SAW THE REAL ZODIAC AND SAY HE IS 35-45?

So why does the Zodiac Community think this guy was older than 30? Why discount a younger suspect due to his age?

I don’t know anyone who would discount a suspect for being under 30 even if they believe him to be older. Your point is well taken that the average age assessment aside from Fouke is roughly 25-30. No question that Fouke is the outlier although I think the revision of the Stine composite sketch begs the question of why the age was revised to 35-45. SOMEBODY was providing new information just a few days after the original sketch and police felt that it was more accurate than original age estimate of 25-30. I personally think it’s likely that Fouke’s input was already being considered even though he has denied contributing to the revised sketch. If he didn’t, it would represent a change of opinion by the teens.

IF the person Fouke saw was Zodiac, I think it’s fair to say that he definitely had the best vantage point as a witness and his age assessment shouldn’t be ignored. So how sure are we that the person Fouke saw was Zodiac? We’re also presuming, of course, that the Zodiac that killed Stine was the same person seen by previous witnesses but that’s opening up a whole ‘nother can of worms. I would suggest that IF Fouke was describing the same individual as the others, his description simply can’t be ignored just because it’s an outlier. I’d be uncomfortable ruling out anyone who was 20-45 in 1969.

Presidio Heights is a Z crime for sure. What bothers me somehow is still the fact that in this case, Z did not attack a young couple. There was no woman involved. Also it did not happen at a lovers lane. No preparation necessary like at LB. Not in Vallejo either. Nevertheless, a Z crime. All this imo supports the idea of his brother or anybody else being connected to Darlene Ferrin, or, at least the SF Chronicle / Mikado Theatre scene..

QT

Not to mention that funky eye he has. Don’t believe I have ever read anyone discussing it.

Soze

That should be discussed if it hasn’t been already. If we’re stripping Z down, is that a real feature or a product of the sketch artist perhaps trying to age the sketch by 10-15 years. If it was a real observation, where did it come from?

Not to mention that funky eye he has. Don’t believe I have ever read anyone discussing it.

Soze

That should be discussed if it hasn’t been already. If we’re stripping Z down, is that a real feature or a product of the sketch artist perhaps trying to age the sketch by 10-15 years. If it was a real observation, where did it come from?

Yes..where did it come from? Was it just someone who THOUGHT it looked like a droopy eye on the wanted poster and it was mentioned on a blog and became Zodiac folklore? I just don’t see how ANY witness could have noticed a droopy/lazy eye.

Yes..where did it come from? Was it just someone who THOUGHT it looked like a droopy eye on the wanted poster and it was mentioned on a blog and became Zodiac folklore? I just don’t see how ANY witness could have noticed a droopy/lazy eye.

I think Fouke could have noticed this. Whether he did and whether it is an accurate observation is another matter.

viewtopic.php?f=30&t=1062

I think the report of the droopy eye and the scars on the chin came from Kathleen Johns?

For some reason, the video of Dr. Rossmo was available on the official Zodiac website promoting the movie but was never included on the dvd. I just checked my dvd again today to see if there was any "text-based" report describing his findings but I couldn’t find anything. I have the regular, two-disc version of the Director’s Cut.

I had a DVD copy of the Rossmo stuff,but cant seem to find it.

I keep in touch with Mike Martin. Kim Rossmo gave Mike Martin a copy of his report & it’s now on Mike Martin’s "The Weekly Scientist" report.

Kim Russo’s: Zodiac Profile Report, "Geographic Profile of a Killer". It’s about 1/4 down on this page.
The report is 31 pages long, just printed in for my Z Files.

http://weeklyscientist.blogspot.com/200 … ght-6.html

Thanks ZAM

I very much doubt the ‘droopy eye’ is anything but an artist error.

It’s easy to generalize about serial killers, but statistically they are from low to middle income families, white males and in their 20s to 30s. They also display 3 characteristics young in life that are warning signs; they torture animals, set fires and wet their beds. Many were physically and/or emotionally abused. They have a preoccupation with police and authority figures. They may have even tried to be come officers or security guards. The psychopathic nature of a serial killer shows that they do not know how to have relationships or to communicate, but have learned to mimic the process. They appear to enjoy not only mimicking, but acting as if they are in their own play. They cannot separate fantasy play from reality, and in the case of Ted Bundy he announced “I am disguised as an attorney today.” They especially like to imitate authority figures. Although we know that a great deal of the population has suffered trauma, brain injury, chemical imbalances, and abuse, they are not serial killers. So, why are a select few? There is a dynamic that seems prevalent; that these men had bad family situations and did not have a male figure relationship that was good. They may have received little nurturing. It was found that in some Eastern European orphanages, babies that weren’t held or comforted, became apathetic and antisocial/psychopathic, as many American families hoping to adopt them later learned. There is a window of opportunity to learn compassion and it begins as a baby.
Some doctors have discovered that there is a genetic aspect that cannot be neglected. In tests of inbreeding with violent mice, they produced violent offspring. There is also a running theme of heavy alcohol use to relieve anxiety and depression.

Onewhoknows, did you see this recent article about the neuroscientist who discovered he was a psychopath? Fascinating stuff.

http://gawker.com/neuroscientist-relate … 1470770331

I think it’s important to consider EVERY known appearance of Zodiac. How would the geographical profile change, for instance, if his presence could be confirmed in Riverside or if CJB was a known victim? I would have to think that would radically change the geographical profile?

Lundrigan & Canter, believe it was 2001, did a study on spatial patterns of serial murder as it related to disposal site location and examined the cases of 126 U.S. serials. They found that only 9 committed their crimes more than 140 km from their home base. That’s just slightly over 7%.

The study into those 9 indicated that the crimes committed by these serials occurred during the commission of long distance travel with work. A truck driver dumping bodies along an interstate would be a good example of this 7%.

We don’t really see this type of disposal behavior regarding the 4 known locations committed by the Zodiac. While appearing some distance apart, they really are pretty close together in terms of what I feel is consistent with, leisure travel. Meaning, commuting travel to work or entertainment points of interest, as examples.

Of the 126 U.S. serials studied, 89% were found to have a home base between the two farthest crimes each offender committed. If this were true then, the two farthest points for the Zodiac would be, the Washington & Cherry Street location and Lake Berryessa. That represents an approximate 57 mile diameter as the crow flies and a boundary of operations for the Zodiac in 1969.

I have a picture showing the diameter and the cities within it. Tried once to get it loaded but it failed. Basically, the boundary was set between the following locations: Lake Berryessa, Bay Point, Washington & Cherry, and Santa Rosa.

Side note: Curious Seagull. Do you consider the Santa Rosa murders to be a potential of Zodiac activity or someone completely different? I ask because, on the surface, it appears those murders fall within the 57 mile diameter. I would have to go to street level to know for certain.

Anyway, I think the Zodiac killed Cheri Jo Bates. I am at odds as to whether or not he committed other murders in or around Riverside. My view regarding Cheri Jo Bates, where it stands now, is that she was the first. As quickly as he killed her, so quickly, did he flee the area. He was young, stupid and ran like hell. So, with the latter sentence in mind, I think including Cheri would give you a false sense of focus with regards to geographically profiling the Zodiac. It appears, on the surface, to be simply a move and not a route of travel for killing. This would place the Zodiac in a greater percentile than the slightly over 7% mentioned above.

Within the Lundrigan & Canter study, it was also reported that 50% of the 126 serials studied had an attack/dumping location of no more than, 10 miles (15 km) from their home. 25% had an attack/dumping location of at least 3 miles (5 km) of their home.

Judging by this it would appear the Zodiac would be in a greater percentile than the 50% who attacked/ dumped their victims just 10 miles from their home, and perhaps right on mark with the 25% who had an attack/dump location at least 3 miles from home; when taking into consideration Blue Rock Springs and, quite possibly, Cheri Jo Bates.

At Blue Rock Springs, we see the Zodiac making a call to police some, 3 to 4 miles from the attack site. Perhaps, as Morf said and taking into consideration the 57 degree boundary, an indication of his home base. In the case of Cheri, we see that her attack site is just a little over, 3 miles from her home. This would indicate to me, absent of any additional victims in the area that, the killer of Cheri, could possibly have been in that 25% as well. It would suggest that her killer had some dealings with the school she attended and/or lived in very close proximity to Cheri to have known her and would certainly consider the latter, especially, given the severity of her wounds and the contact with family.

While I think that including Cheri in a geographical profile of the Zodiac would ultimately be a misdirection, working Cheri separately from the Zodiac but applying the knowledge we have of him, could allow us to narrow the suspect pool a great deal in both cases and perhaps allow us to make a connection between the two.

With this being said, I would consider a geographical profile on Cheri that was within a 57 mile diameter of Cheri Jo’s attack location. This is the furthest distance we can say for certain the Zodiac travelled to kill. Given the time lapse between Cheri and Faraday/Jensen, as well as the apparant learned behavior with each additional crime the Zodiac committed, I wouldnt be a bit surprised to learn, assuming other victims could be found, that the diameter from Cheri’s attack site was as little as 20 miles. If no other crimes occurred within that 57 mile diameter, then it would be my bet, the killer of Cheri lived within 10 miles of the attack site and part of that 50% in 1966.

Soze

I think it’s important to consider EVERY known appearance of Zodiac. How would the geographical profile change, for instance, if his presence could be confirmed in Riverside or if CJB was a known victim? I would have to think that would radically change the geographical profile?

Lundrigan & Canter, believe it was 2001, did a study on spatial patterns of serial murder as it related to disposal site location and examined the cases of 126 U.S. serials. They found that only 9 committed their crimes more than 140 km from their home base. That’s just slightly over 7%.

The study into those 9 indicated that the crimes committed by these serials occurred during the commission of long distance travel with work. A truck driver dumping bodies along an interstate would be a good example of this 7%.

We don’t really see this type of disposal behavior regarding the 4 known locations committed by the Zodiac. While appearing some distance apart, they really are pretty close together in terms of what I feel is consistent with, leisure travel. Meaning, commuting travel to work or entertainment points of interest, as examples.

Of the 126 U.S. serials studied, 89% were found to have a home base between the two farthest crimes each offender committed. If this were true then, the two farthest points for the Zodiac would be, the Washington & Cherry Street location and Lake Berryessa. That represents an approximate 57 mile diameter as the crow flies and a boundary of operations for the Zodiac in 1969.

I have a picture showing the diameter and the cities within it. Tried once to get it loaded but it failed. Basically, the boundary was set between the following locations: Lake Berryessa, Bay Point, Washington & Cherry, and Santa Rosa.

Side note: Curious Seagull. Do you consider the Santa Rosa murders to be a potential of Zodiac activity or someone completely different? I ask because, on the surface, it appears those murders fall within the 57 mile diameter. I would have to go to street level to know for certain.

Anyway, I think the Zodiac killed Cheri Jo Bates. I am at odds as to whether or not he committed other murders in or around Riverside. My view regarding Cheri Jo Bates, where it stands now, is that she was the first. As quickly as he killed her, so quickly, did he flee the area. He was young, stupid and ran like hell. So, with the latter sentence in mind, I think including Cheri would give you a false sense of focus with regards to geographically profiling the Zodiac. It appears, on the surface, to be simply a move and not a route of travel for killing. This would place the Zodiac in a greater percentile than the slightly over 7% mentioned above.

Within the Lundrigan & Canter study, it was also reported that 50% of the 126 serials studied had an attack/dumping location of no more than, 10 miles (15 km) from their home. 25% had an attack/dumping location of at least 3 miles (5 km) of their home.

Judging by this it would appear the Zodiac would be in a greater percentile than the 50% who attacked/ dumped their victims just 10 miles from their home, and perhaps right on mark with the 25% who had an attack/dump location at least 3 miles from home; when taking into consideration Blue Rock Springs and, quite possibly, Cheri Jo Bates.

At Blue Rock Springs, we see the Zodiac making a call to police some, 3 to 4 miles from the attack site. Perhaps, as Morf said and taking into consideration the 57 degree boundary, an indication of his home base. In the case of Cheri, we see that her attack site is just a little over, 3 miles from her home. This would indicate to me, absent of any additional victims in the area that, the killer of Cheri, could possibly have been in that 25% as well. It would suggest that her killer had some dealings with the school she attended and/or lived in very close proximity to Cheri to have known her and would certainly consider the latter, especially, given the severity of her wounds and the contact with family.

While I think that including Cheri in a geographical profile of the Zodiac would ultimately be a misdirection, working Cheri separately from the Zodiac but applying the knowledge we have of him, could allow us to narrow the suspect pool a great deal in both cases and perhaps allow us to make a connection between the two.

With this being said, I would consider a geographical profile on Cheri that was within a 57 mile diameter of Cheri Jo’s attack location. This is the furthest distance we can say for certain the Zodiac travelled to kill. Given the time lapse between Cheri and Faraday/Jensen, as well as the apparant learned behavior with each additional crime the Zodiac committed, I wouldnt be a bit surprised to learn, assuming other victims could be found, that the diameter from Cheri’s attack site was as little as 20 miles. If no other crimes occurred within that 57 mile diameter, then it would be my bet, the killer of Cheri lived within 10 miles of the attack site and part of that 50% in 1966.

Soze

Interesting ideas and facts there, Soze. I tend to agree that CJB should be considered as an outlier even if we believe Z was involved due to the distance and time disparity. By "every known appearance", I’m also thinking of mailings of communications. For most serial killers (non-communicating ones), a geographical profile can only take into account where the individual’s crimes were committed. In the case of Zodiac, or any communicating serial killer, we have a more extensive range of instances where we can pinpoint his location on a given day (based on letter postmarks and the couple of phone calls). To me, that shouldn’t be overlooked in considering a geographical profile.

Profiling 101 usually presumes that "serial killers begin close to home" but that’s not always the case. BTK actually began killing some distance from home (although well within the range you mention) and both his murders and communications actually got closer to home, even killing a neighbor just a short distance from his home. Laziness? Desire to be caught? Dunno…

Here’s an interesting discussion from ZKfacts on the subject. The posts from "Son of Jack" regarding geographical profiling are particularly interesting:

http://www.zodiackillerfacts.com/forum/ … =89&t=1007

I don’t understand how anybody can claim that Fouke and Zelms ‘did not see the real Zodiac’.

That being said, their age estimate is an outlier.

I think, the sad truth is, Z was somewhere between his 20’s and 40’s,and thats an awful big span, which would fail to rule out a great deal of suspects. The initial sketch put Z at 25-35, and the ammended one at 35-45. The mystery guy sketch at Berryessa was described as 28-30,as well as the guy seen by Johns. Hartnell and Slate both described z as sounding in his 20’s,and "like a student". In short, we are all over the place here, a true mess.

Assuming we can rule out all non-white men, men under 18,and men over 50, we are still left with a very high % of the SF Bay population. For me personally, figure out which ones were in Riverside in 66-67,and that suspect pool will drop wayyyyy down to a very small amount of suspects

Voice has no bearing on age. We have all heard of the stereotypical phone sex operator that is 60 but sounds like she is 18. The same is true for men. I know a lot of men who are in their 40s but sound very young. Age ranges based upon physical appearance are equally subjective and have a lot to do with the age of the observer. That said, 25-30 is a reasonable estimate, but that only gets you to how old he looked. He could have been 50 and looked 30.

It’s easy to generalize about serial killers, but statistically they are from low to middle income families, white males and in their 20s to 30s. They also display 3 characteristics young in life that are warning signs; they torture animals, set fires and wet their beds. Many were physically and/or emotionally abused. They have a preoccupation with police and authority figures. They may have even tried to be come officers or security guards. The psychopathic nature of a serial killer shows that they do not know how to have relationships or to communicate, but have learned to mimic the process. They appear to enjoy not only mimicking, but acting as if they are in their own play. They cannot separate fantasy play from reality, and in the case of Ted Bundy he announced “I am disguised as an attorney today.” They especially like to imitate authority figures. Although we know that a great deal of the population has suffered trauma, brain injury, chemical imbalances, and abuse, they are not serial killers. So, why are a select few? There is a dynamic that seems prevalent; that these men had bad family situations and did not have a male figure relationship that was good. They may have received little nurturing. It was found that in some Eastern European orphanages, babies that weren’t held or comforted, became apathetic and antisocial/psychopathic, as many American families hoping to adopt them later learned. There is a window of opportunity to learn compassion and it begins as a baby.
Some doctors have discovered that there is a genetic aspect that cannot be neglected. In tests of inbreeding with violent mice, they produced violent offspring. There is also a running theme of heavy alcohol use to relieve anxiety and depression.

I don’t like perpetuating anything by race and would like to clarify this post has ZERO racist intent or tone. But I also don’t ignore numbers. Its true that over time, white males still represent the long term majority of serial killers, but not by much. In the 60s and 70s, it’s true white males represented most serial killers, for the last 20 years or so, that fact has actually shifted to African American men. I agree with the serial killer attributes posted by the OP, but statistics for race don’t necessarily point directly at white males as an overwhelmingly majorly, which is what most consider stereotypical of a serial killer. Black males are disproportionately serial killers in relation to their demographic (roughly 30% of the population) in the United States.

http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/Serial%2 … istics.pdf