With such a wealth of evidence it can be hard to sift through it and find the pieces that are most distinctive. This is compounded by the killers own attempts to lead us astray. And so we must constantly ask ourselves what parts of the killers writing could be put on vs. what parts are likely integral to his personality. Things like spelling mistakes, and allusions to motives are easily feigned, we cannot be very certain about whether they are truly part of the killers day to day personality.
We have to look for traits in his writing that are constant, pervasive, particular and difficult to feign consistently.
There is one trait that I believe stands out above all others, one that permeates his writing so thoroughly that it could not be consciously faked. One trait that not only holds up under scientific scrutiny, but becomes even sharper when analysed.
It’s a trait is less subjective, less prone to speculation and must more likely to be part of the killers day to day personality and more likely to be noticed by friends and family.
It’s a trait that doesn’t get mentioned nearly enough on this forum, and when it does it’s clear that people are unaware just how much it pervades the killers writing.
What is it? The Zodiac talks like a prissy little auto-didactic. He’s got a plumb in his mouth. He talks in pseudo-intellectual and distinctly British, or upper class manner.
Now people are going to say that he uses a bit of jive 60’s lingo as well and that he sounds dumb a lot of the time. But that’s what so good about this trait, unlike the superficial attempts at sounding poorly educated, or the occasional bit of slang, this britishness holds up far better under scrutiny. It’s just so much more wide spread in his writings. It goes way beyond sounding like a campy supervillian, I am convinced it is deeply ingrained in his personality.
I also think it’s harder to fake, it appeals to his ego, it meshes with his sardonic and black humor and his interests. I mean people (men) don’t pretend to like musical theatre, if he has such a bit ego why would he risk looking like a sissy unless he admired that type of distinctly campy british humor. Think about it, who would pretend to be like Sideshow Bob unless they admired that kind of intellectual? To Californian of the 70’s it word be embarrassing and nerdy, even a bit effeminate. It’s pretty clear that the hard boiled mustachio’d detectives of the 1970’s thought he was more than a bit *cough* you know what I mean. And don’t give me that bit about the Marx brothers, it’s same material and the same humor. It doesn’t matter if it’s Groucho or Kevin Kline, if you laughed at the scene it means you like campy british musical theatre.
Whomever he was, people who knew him would have noticed a distinctly sardonic, dry, witty, psdeudo-intellectual manner of speaking typified by upper class britishisms. He was also very likely to be didactic in his manner.
This is a far better trait to focus on that, "did he read comics?", or "was he into musical theatre?". People might not remember those specifics, but they will recall if he spoke like a pompous wan… you know what I mean.
Also this trait often runs in families. If we have viable suspects we should attempt to get writing samples from close relatives and see if any of them have a tendency to talk or write like in a similar manner.
Thoughts? 
He talks in pseudo-intellectual and distinctly British, or upper class manner.
He didn’t make that impression on Bryan Hartnell.
I might have used a bit of hyperbole. I don’t image for one moment that he actually had some kind of posh accent, it just seems humorous to me to picture him that way. No I believe was almost certainly American and spoke accordingly to a greater degree.
Hartnell lead the conversation though, with the killer seemingly more than a little reluctant to speak. The problem with account’s like Hartnell’s is that there is a real paucity of information, the killer barely spoke and Hartnell even believes in retrospect that he may have even disguised his voice. We don’t really know what he said, but we do know what he wrote.
The Zodiac sustained britishisms throughout his writing, some so subtle it’s only possible to locate them thanks to advances in technology. It’s unlikely he affected this as part of his subterfuge and it’s unlikely that it wouldn’t be present in his everyday speech.
From his writings we get a lot of information and I seems apparent that most of the time he attempts to mislead us about his personality, and so some of the traits he displays are questionable and subjective. But others are fairly certain. Of the aspects of his personality that are almost certainly not part of his subterfuge I would list the following: sardonic, sarcastic, egotistical, reactive, argumentative, didactic, autodidactic, camp, theatrical. These traits are present in his language and corroborated by his actions. These traits would also seem difficult to feign. Why do I say this? Well someone who is not inclined to these traits would have a hard time conceiving of them. You try explaining to some why Gillbert and Sullivan is so damn funny, they either get camp, or they don’t get camp, you can’t fake that stuff. People with a sunny optimistic outlook cannot conceive of sardonic humor, they don’t get it. Zodiac get’s it, and demonstrates the ability to use it. Also we can be fairly certain he is egotistical and these traits go well with that. Or are we to suppose to believe that he feigned egotism? Even better these traits are not common in the general population and are often considered obnoxious by the man on the street.
It’s entirely plausible that acquaintances may not notice these traits, but it would seem impossible that his egotistical personality would have been unknown to close friends and family. It effected the way he wrote and it would have effected the way he interacted. Also these traits are very likely to be present in close relatives.
To put things more concisely, britishisms are demonstrably the most outstanding and unique feature of Zodiacs confirmed letters. Therefore they are the aspect of his language most likely to lead to his discovery. That would be my argument.
But don’t take my word for it I’ll catelogue the examples properly and we’ll see if they add to anything substantive.
All right so this is a bit long and I kinda slapped it together, but I think there’s some good stuff. If you think it’s cherry picking, just remember this, we expect him to talk like an American, what we don’t expect is anything outside that, those things are anomalies and that is precisely what we should be focusing on, the things that don’t fit.
I’ve been chewing over my choice of words and I’ve decided given that the killer is clearly American, the term "britishism" doesn’t always fit. After much thinking I’ve come up with a better term, he’s simply pretentious.
"This is the Zodiac speaking" – On the one hand this sounds a lot like a supervillain, but not just any, specifically the cerebral variety. It’s no accident that this language has a certain British flavor as well, operating as a certain shorthand for this type of villian.
"Slacks" – not a britishism at all, but certainly old-timey and more pedantic than simpler terms. A review of American literary corpus suggests the term slacks was at it’s least popular in 1969.
"Dozen" – This terms popularity was in serious decline in the 1960’s, whilst it’s popularity continued in Britian and amongst America’s aging population. Also Americans use it more formally, like if you go to the store and actually buy a dozen eggs. The British are more likely to use it in social settings.
"Please" – True to form the English are more mindful of their manners and are considerably more likely to include this term.
"This is the murderer" – This is such a formal way of introducing oneself. It’s also some what dramatic and theatrical, like an announcement. But it’s so formal and such a departure from what would have been common in the local area.
"Over by" – To describe something as being "over by" the such and such has just never caught on in American English. It’s a great example of the redundancy found in British English. An American speaker is much or likely to simply say "at". Not only is redundancy found more in British English it’s also strongly associate with (pseudo) intellectual speech patterns. The redundancy and pedanticism appeals to those who like to sound smart; it’s not just how big the words are, it’s how many you use. In fact the whole sentence is needlessly long.
"Did in" – this playful idiom is cliche’ of American pulp detective novels. It’s an odd choice of language though, playful, creative, old fashion.
"searched the park properly" – Again the killer uses slightly redundant language. By adding the word "properly" he again denotes a certain pedantic, or didactic quality. He’s lecturing the police.
"School Children" – Again the killer gravitates to more redundant and pedantic language in a very natural manner. Not kids, or school kids. Later when he uses the term kiddies, it almost sounds like a shift in tone from formal to jocular. There’s a certain sophistication to the juxtaposition and it heightens the humor. Is "kiddies" an American thing? It doesn’t seem right?
"I think I shall" – Do I even need to explain this one? I mean who in 1960’s California speaks like that? "I think I shall go down to lake this afternoon for a stroll". It’s ridiculous language for the setting and yet it doesn’t seem put on, it seems natural and uncontrived.
"I thought you would need a good laugh before you hear the bad news" – There are elements of this that make it clear the writer is American ("would"), but it’s classic British humor. It’s a gross understatement. I’m not sure how many Americans of that era would have even understood this, or why it was funny.
"I’m mildly cerius" – forget the misspelling, that’s just tortured, the phrase itself is so uncalifornian and so formal. You could almost image the Queen of England making that kind of statement "I’m mildly amused". It’s also another form of ironic understatement.
"Awfully lonely" – Clearly an American due to the choice of the word awfully over terribly, but the use of the adjective is itself the unusual part. An American is far more likely to simply say "so lonely". Qualifying it with "awfully" sounds frilly.
The more you read these letters the more you get the feeling that the writer is not so much writing as speaking and he’s acting out various parts in a theatrical manner. His tone shifts from high brow to low brow, as though acting the part of the clever British detective and then the role of the poorly educated mobster. He’s acting out all these cliche’s. I can’t help but think the writer has some experience in acting, or public speaking… no definitely acting, there’s too much flare. Have we found any suspects that did stage acting? It’s also childlike though, so I can’t see this person being a professional actor.
There’s more examples.
"One might say" – come on, who in 60’s Cali talks like that? This one doesn’t need an explanation, it unusual for the time and place, it’s pretentious and it’s very british.
"nasty" – it’s British, it’s even a bit effeminate and it’s an odd choice for an American male.
Also this way of speaking in the third person, there’s something pretentious about that that I can’t quite put my finger on… I know it’s something I’ve heard people do, I just can’t think of an example, but when I start to talk that way I almost instinctively put on the voice of some kind of supervillian. There’s this quality to it.
I’m less surprised that Hartnell didn’t notice anything. He’s not age appropriate, it’s almost childlike. I’m sure he had a great imagination, but Hartnell’s attempt to engage him in normal conversation was never going to draw out his eccentricities.
I’m certain though that someone like this couldn’t have blended in very well. It’s not to say anyone would notice anything sinister, he may have been a quite interesting fellow, but not just ordinary; quiet maybe, so acquaintances might conclude that he was ordinary. But no one who truly knew this person could have missed his particularities, it’s more likely they noticed, but never equated them with anything sinister.
People, experts even, talk about serial killers blending in. I think it’s a poor description. It’s not that they blend in, it’s that they appear sufficiently benign and well behaved that any oddness is not equated with murder. That’s a far cry from being ordinary. I can’t think of a single serial killer who I would describe as "ordinary", in the sense that there was nothing eccentric about them.
The more you read these letters the more you get the feeling that the writer is not so much writing as speaking and he’s acting out various parts in a theatrical manner. His tone shifts from high brow to low brow, as though acting the part of the clever British detective and then the role of the poorly educated mobster. He’s acting out all these cliche’s. I can’t help but think the writer has some experience in acting, or public speaking… no definitely acting, there’s too much flare. Have we found any suspects that did stage acting? It’s also childlike though, so I can’t see this person being a professional actor.
Ross Sullivan did filmmaking and stage acting. Rick Marshall was involved in productions of The Mikado. Richard Gaikowski wrote film reviews. Larry Kane was a master of ceremonies and had showbiz links.
I agree with a lot of your thoughts on some of the use of words, but many like "over by" seem to be quite logical. I say that all the time and I’m very much American. 
If it’s not at, it’s "over by"…for me, anyway.
“…they may be dealing with one or more ersatz Zodiacs–other psychotics eager to get into the act, or perhaps even other murderers eager to lay their crimes at the real Zodiac’s doorstep.“ L.A. Times, 1969
GSK used the phrase "I shall…" in one of his communications. Not that this means anything. 
i like this approach and the observations replaceablehead is making. And I think they should develop it more in this thread, see where it goes… including looking at the 408, and the contents of each of it’s 3 parts.
You do realise "british" (how American of you)people like myself use this site, don’t you? Let me give you a "britishism" :bollocks. I find your association of British with effeminate quite offensive. A bit like Walter Matthau in taking of Pelham 123,describing Robert shaw as having a British accent, he’s probably a fruitcake. One sour note in a fantastic film. I don’t see much upper class English in the zodiac letters, and my dad had an "upper class" education. He also wasn’t camp or effeminate. He did, however, use the zodiac phrase "fiddling and farting around" (I was always doing this, apparently) which I believe the fbi determined was texan. This shows what a load of cobblers(another Britishism) this sort of analysis can be. How do you rate spelling victim as victom? Nothing camp or upper class English about that. I would get chucked off the site for using some other Britishisms that are far from camp that I felt like using when reading your analysis, but instead I’ll focus on writing a post on "american" speech. Only joking, I know bugger all about how Americans speak,so wouldn’t dare.
You do realise "british" (how American of you)people like myself use this site, don’t you? Let me give you a "britishism" :bollocks. I find your association of British with effeminate quite offensive. A bit like Walter Matthau in taking of Pelham 123,describing Robert shaw as having a British accent, he’s probably a fruitcake. One sour note in a fantastic film. I don’t see much upper class English in the zodiac letters, and my dad had an "upper class" education. He also wasn’t camp or effeminate. He did, however, use the zodiac phrase "fiddling and farting around" (I was always doing this, apparently) which I believe the fbi determined was texan. This shows what a load of cobblers(another Britishism) this sort of analysis can be. How do you rate spelling victim as victom? Nothing camp or upper class English about that. I would get chucked off the site for using some other Britishisms that are far from camp that I felt like using when reading your analysis, but instead I’ll focus on writing a post on "american" speech. Only joking, I know bugger all about how Americans speak,so wouldn’t dare.
Well said ! I also found it quite insulting 
I find replaceablehead’s analysis insightful and quite entertaining, not offensive. I don’t think descriptions like "effeminate" are meant as insulting, but rather how the writer’s style might be perceived in the culture of 50 years ago.
I find replaceablehead’s analysis insightful and quite entertaining, not offensive. I don’t think descriptions like "effeminate" are meant as insulting, but rather how the writer’s style might be perceived in the culture of 50 years ago.
Agree. Like Archie Bunker saying "England is a fag country".
The Zodiac writings are akin to the keyboard warriors of today.
Nothing about the writer should be deduced by its contents or the manner of its contents aside from the blatant obvious.
He wrote to antagonize, he succeeded, spelling mistakes i believe were intentional aspects of the antagonism.
Yes, dyslexia is probably my first undiagnosed language.
We’ll it’s lucky the FBI don’t see things that way or they’d never have caught the unabomber.
I think the letters are our best evidence. They’re the only thing we can be certain came from the killer (the confirmed ones at least). The issue is interpreting them, but is that really so hard? People love to make out that texts are difficult to interpret, that you can only guess at what an author had in mind. I think this is just an impressive statement. Written text is not beyond our ability to fathom, even if the author intends to mislead us certain traits will become apparent under scrutiny.
I would be very confident in saying that we have a good understanding of the Zodiacs humor, it’s not something that can be faked, you can’t fake what you find funny, because unless you find it funny it will… look do I really need to explain this? We can be very certain that he was sardonic and sarcastic in real life and this humor appeals to much less than half the population. We can also be certain that he had a decent sized ego. It’s very unlikely that people didn’t notice these traits, its simply that no one would connect them with serial killing.
The thing is I believe we can actually use these traits to rule out suspects, if we know enough about them to be sure they didn’t possess these traits.
These days we watch documentaries where experts say things like "serial killers hide in plain sight", or "psychopaths are able to blend into their social environment". I think we often take that to mean that they’re in no way odd to those around them, and I think that is totally unsupported by documented cases. Do you really think that no one ever noticed that Ted Bundy was a pompous arse? Or that he liked to pretend to be upper class, or that he was delusional about his achievements? Of course they noticed, many associates made such comments in hindsight, they just never connect that with his evil actions at the time.
We know a great many things about the Zodiacs hobbies, tastes and personality that are very very unlikely to part of his ruse. We should not hesitate to rule out any suspect that is known categorically not to posses these traits. I mean do you really believe someone can pretend to understand sardonic humor and pretend to like musical theatre, and not just "like" it, but demonstrates a comprehension of it. One of the Universities in Australia used enjoyment of Gilbert and Sullivan as part of a larger questionnaire that is supposed to identify what social class you belong to. It’s pretty high brow fare, hell the Marx Brothers was pretty high brow fare by the late 60’s.
Think about the theory of mind required to demonstrate appreciation for things that you don’t appreciate. Such an individual would have to be so smart that it would render the argument moot.
I believe we can be as confident that the Zodiac enjoyed musical theatre as we can that Ted Kandinsky was a neo-luddite.
"The Zodiac, boof-head sports fan by day, costume wearing light opera fan by night".
For some reason I couldn’t post on this thread and I just realise my last post went through, so I’m moving my apology to the correct thread.
I’m really sorry to anyone that was offended by my use of the word "britishisms".
I pretty much knew when I hit post that it wasn’t right, but you know it was late and I basically thought "meh, to long to change it now, they know what I’m trying to say".
Anyway I wasn’t trying to suggest that I personally think everyone from the British Isles speaks like Kenneth Williams, I was trying to say that every pseudo-intellectual, egotistical-nerd wannabe since the dawn of time has been hijacking certain parts of their language (the upper class bits) to sound smart and sophisticated. Or at least what these individuals perceive as being part of it. That’s all. Sorry.
