I don’t know if this has been suggested by anyone previously but I have been thinking about Z’s "In this Cipher is my Identity" remark when I suddenly had an epiphany!

Zodiac’s 3 part Cipher is accompanied by three letters, one to The Chronicle, one to The Vallejo Times Herald and the third sent to the S.F Examiner. All three letters that accompany each of the Cipher parts are basically the same, the odd wording differing here and there on occasion but still the same message. There is one obvious extra comment in the letter to the Chronicle that doesn’t appear, in any form nor even implied, in the other two to the Herald & Examiner and that’s the claim Z makes that "In this Cipher is my identity."

I don’t think this is an accident, that he simply forgot to inform the Herald & Examiner that his ID was in the Cipher! I think, in all likelihood, he’s giving us a clue that the hint or reference to his identity can be found in the 8 line section of Cipher that was sent to the Chronicle and that’s why he only writes in that one letter that "In this Cipher is my Identity" because that was the part of the Cipher that has something to do with his identity. He didn’t tell the Herald & Examiner that his identity was in the cipher because it wasn’t, at least not the two sections he sent to those two papers.

Anyone opinions?

Good observation, Chappie. I never noticed that. It could be just because it was the last letter written and he wanted to specify that the cipher was supposed to reveal his "idenity" or it could be more significant. Of course, we have "GYKE" in the frigging cipher there right as he’s going back on his word and explaining why he won’t give us his name. Right, smithy?

Or it could be an indication that the unsolved portion of the Chronicle cipher is supposed to contain his idenity as kind of a signature line following the cipher message and encoded differently. That seems unlikely considering the observation that portions of it seem to be "dragged down" from other lines but who knows? Whatever the case, Z is exposing himself as a liar by promising his idenity in the Chronicle letter and going back on his word in the accompanying cipher. Come to think of it, perhaps that was the point? He asks us to look for his identity in the Chronicle portion just so he can pull the rug out front under us when we look for it in that portion of the cipher.

Good observation, Chappie. I never noticed that. It could be just because it was the last letter written and he wanted to specify that the cipher was supposed to reveal his "idenity" or it could be more significant. Of course, we have "GYKE" in the frigging cipher there right as he’s going back on his word and explaining why he won’t give us his name. Right, smithy?

Or it could be an indication that the unsolved portion of the Chronicle cipher is supposed to contain his idenity as kind of a signature line following the cipher message and encoded differently. That seems unlikely considering the observation that portions of it seem to be "dragged down" from other lines but who knows? Whatever the case, Z is exposing himself as a liar by promising his idenity in the Chronicle letter and going back on his word in the accompanying cipher. Come to think of it, perhaps that was the point? He asks us to look for his identity in the Chronicle portion just so he can pull the rug out front under us when we look for it in that portion of the cipher.

On the surface and at face value, it does appear that Z as contradicted himself deliberately by first telling us "In this Cipher is my Identity" before he informs us in decoded Cipher text "I will not give you my name."

That does appear to be him saying one then, then pulling the rug out from under the reader with a sort of "HA-HA, I’m not telling you my name really" but did he really do that? Is that what he is really saying? It’s natural for us as humans to make assumptions, we make assumptions in everything we do and most of the time it’s unconscious assumption’s we make. For example, I am sat here typing away at my laptop in my house because I assume that the roof won’t collapse on my head and kill me (lol). But in regards to Z, I think he exploited this in his writing in many letters. This one here is a classic example. When he wrote "In this Cipher is my Identity" he knew full well that we’d all simply assume that this means his name will be found within the code. But he didn’t say that in the letter. He said ‘Identity’, if he wanted to say ‘In this Cipher is my Name’ he simply would have, then told us when it was decoded ‘I will not give you my name.’

Zodiac says "I will not give you my name" and probably knows people will think he’s referring to his claim in the letter that his identity is there and I don’t think he is. If he were doing that, why wouldn’t he say "I will not give you my identity?" He simply says he won’t give us his name, which is nothing to do with his earlier comment of him giving us his identity but he knows we’ll assume it does and not bother to look closely now. Links & Clues to His Identity could be Social Security No, Job Title, Street Name etc etc. I think a big clue to his identity is there somewhere, not his Name, but something that would help to identify him if it was found.
/
GYKE appears in the section of Cipher sent to the Examiner doesn’t it? And lets be honest, Gaikowski never spelled his abbreviated name ‘GYKE’ anyway, He signed it ‘GAIK.’ Using my own name as an example, Alex, what if a Cipher had ‘Alan’ clear to see in one of the encryption lines? Would we all convince ourselves "Case Closed, Z’s name is Alex because it says ‘Alan’ there in the Cipher!" Lol. A logic that says ‘close enough, we’ll make it fit!"

That is an interesting thought WC.

Particularly interesting to me that Zodiac said, as you note the possible intended emphasis, "In THIS cipher is my identity", as it is in that cipher sent to the Chronicle that the final unsolved 18 symbols appear. And it is in those 18 translated letters, the EBE sequence, that the 18 letter name of a suspect appears when a Caesar shift is applied.

GYKE appears in the section of Cipher sent to the Examiner doesn’t it? And lets be honest, Gaikowski never spelled his abbreviated name ‘GYKE’ anyway, He signed it ‘GAIK.’ Using my own name as an example, Alex, what if a Cipher had ‘Alan’ clear to see in one of the encryption lines? Would we all convince ourselves "Case Closed, Z’s name is Alex because it says ‘Alan’ there in the Cipher!" Lol. A logic that says ‘close enough, we’ll make it fit!"

Sorry, your example is not very accurate. The Gyke that some believe might refer to Gaik is at least phonetically similar. But to compare Alex and Alan which are not phonetically similar by any stretch is just wrong. Had you used Alex/Alyx you might have sounded more believable. All I get from this part of your post is that you are just taking yet another snarky shot at those who believe Gaik is a viable suspect. The Gaik/Gyke controversy is well documented and your redundant posts on the issue are not appreciated or welcomed.

You have some good observations, Alex, but then you end up crossing the line with this kind of stuff and devalue yourself and your ideas.

GYKE appears in the section of Cipher sent to the Examiner doesn’t it? And lets be honest, Gaikowski never spelled his abbreviated name ‘GYKE’ anyway, He signed it ‘GAIK.’ Using my own name as an example, Alex, what if a Cipher had ‘Alan’ clear to see in one of the encryption lines? Would we all convince ourselves "Case Closed, Z’s name is Alex because it says ‘Alan’ there in the Cipher!" Lol. A logic that says ‘close enough, we’ll make it fit!"

Sorry, your example is not very accurate. The Gyke that some believe might refer to Gaik is at least phonetically similar. But to compare Alex and Alan which are not phonetically similar by any stretch is just wrong. Had you used Alex/Alyx you might have sounded more believable. All I get from this part of your post is that you are just taking yet another snarky shot at those who believe Gaik is a viable suspect. The Gaik/Gyke controversy is well documented and your redundant posts on the issue are not appreciated or welcomed.

You have some good observations, Alex, but then you end up crossing the line with this kind of stuff and devalue yourself and your ideas.

Yep…sounds the same, just spelled differently. Putting in GAIK probably would not be a good idea if it were him, but GYKE is sort of right smack in your face. (And most know I don’t think it was him, but it’s there and it is what it is)

We discussed this "identity" before. I sure don’t believe he would give us his name. No way. Sort of like Zodiac’s claim to shoot kids as they come bouncing out of a bus. "if you believe that…."

It does appear to be some sort of clue since it is only in the S.F. Chronicle cipher, but is it a clue or a tease? Either way, I don’t think it will read his actual name…and I think we all agree with that.

That is an interesting thought WC.

Particularly interesting to me that Zodiac said, as you note the possible intended emphasis, "In THIS cipher is my identity", as it is in that cipher sent to the Chronicle that the final unsolved 18 symbols appear. And it is in those 18 translated letters, the EBE sequence, that the 18 letter name of a suspect appears when a Caesar shift is applied.

Very possible AK that the remaining un-deciphered 18 letters is a hint at his identity. But it could also be a red herring, a useless line of random letters placed there to give the impression that this line is where his identity lay when in fact, it’s hidden within the several lines above. Who knows? But I do think that Z only wrote ‘In this cipher is my identity’ in one of the Cipher letters deliberately because as you point out, of the six words in that short sentence, the key word is this, "In this cipher is my identity" as apposed to the other two sections.

Ironically though. That letter is the only one where he refers to it definitely as only part of a cipher. The other two he refers to them as ciphers and then corrects to ‘part of’.

Ironically though. That letter is the only one where he refers to it definitely as only part of a cipher. The other two he refers to them as ciphers and then corrects to ‘part of’.

Yeah I see what you mean. In the letters to the Times & Examiner he write "Here is a cipher, or that is part of one." Whereas in the letter to the Chronicle he states "Here is part of a Cipher."

What is strange about the three letters is that the one addressed to the Chronicle is different to the other two in several respects. For example, in the two letters to the Examiner & Times, Zodiac states the exact same quote in each of "I want you to print this cipher on your frunt page." In both these letters he spells ‘front’ as ‘frunt’. Yet in his letter to the Chronicle, he spell’s it correctly by demanding "I want you to print this cipher on your front page."

"I want you to print this cipher on your frunt page." In both these letters he spells ‘front’ as ‘frunt’. Yet in his letter to the Chronicle, he spell’s it correctly by demanding "I want you to print this cipher on your front page."

Actually, he spells it as "frunt" in the Chronicle letter as well.

"I want you to print this cipher on your frunt page." In both these letters he spells ‘front’ as ‘frunt’. Yet in his letter to the Chronicle, he spell’s it correctly by demanding "I want you to print this cipher on your front page."

Actually, he spells it as "frunt" in the Chronicle letter as well.

My mistake, you are correct in that specific example. But generally the spelling of Z is inconsistent. One example of this is that he states in the Paul Stine confession letter that he is considering shooting out the tyres of a school bus and then "Pick of the kiddies as they come bouncing out." Kid or kiddies here is spelled with K correctly. Yet in his ‘My Name Is..’ letter he boasts "But there is more glory in killing a cop than a cid"

I think that goes to the larger point that IMO most of the Zodiac misspelled words are intentional, designed to make him look less educated than he was in real life.

I think that goes to the larger point that IMO most of the Zodiac misspelled words are intentional, designed to make him look less educated than he was in real life.

Agreed. He’d spells ‘Kid’ correctly in his threat to ‘pick off the kiddies’, then 6 months later he states "more glory in killing a cop than a cid."

Then there are other words he constantly misspells over & over, such as ‘Victom.’

I think, like his Method of Operation and everything else about Zodiac, his writing is just another thing that he does with no consistency at all. That’s the one consistent thing about Z, he was always inconsistent in almost everything he did and said.

I suppose that is a wise strategy to employ if your Zodiac because if questioned as a potential suspect, Zodiac would know that police will look for any unusual or consistent spelling mistakes in the communications from the killer, and ask the suspect they are questioning to write a sentence with that specific word in it to see if the suspect spells it incorrectly in the same way as the known offender did in the letters.

I can almost see Z keeping misspelled words regular like ‘Victom’ knowing that if questioned and asked to write a sentence with the word in it, he would know that the police are looking for a man to spell it ‘Victom’, whereupon he’d promptly spell it correctly this time and get a kick out of knowing why the police asked him to write this and what they are looking for in the grammar. I can imagine Z getting extreme satisfaction knowing he’d got one over on the police again.