I feel like Z had a connection to the Vallejo area but most likely didn’t live there at the time of the Zodiac crimes. Could be wrong but there is also evidence that Z didn’t know the area of Vallejo all that well. Z also seemed to flee the LHR scene and head south. Also in this report it points out that Napa is not on the normal route from Lake Berryessa to Vallejo.

Someone once did a great writeup using examples of famous serial killers and pointed out that in most cases, serial killer’s first kill is around 10 miles from home. Even more interesting is that the second kill is usually even further away than the first. Then they tend to move closer and closer to home as they grow more confident. If Z lived in Vallejo he would have had the opposite pattern.

I seem to remember based on that theory, Z would have lived in SF or the Oakland/Berkeley area.

This report makes some odd assumptions. It assumes that the killer committed the crimes near to where he lives and that he never moved residences during the total time of all murders. I don’t see any basis to assume this to be true or false.

It also does not account for the Bates murder or Johns attacks citing a lack of connecting evidence, but it does include the Lake Attack, which has the same amount of connecting evidence, E.G.: handwriting and Zodiac communications.

Now I’m not saying that we should dismiss Lake B and consider Johns as equally or more credible, just that this analysis is based on an arbitrary criteria and altering it would considerably change it’s conclusion.

Search ROSSMO on this site, and there is a link to a video with Rossmo discussing his findings

There seems to be plenty to this geographic profile approach – in general. Much is known about how serial killers operate in terms of WHERE they choose to attack and how this changes as their "careers" develop. But Z is not a typical serial killer.

I can’t get past the fact that ALL his known missives during the height of his spree were sent from San Francisco (including those that were sent to out-of-town papers). And of ALL known and confirmed missives only three (?) were sent from out of town (and not too far out of town either.)

For my money Z lived in San Francisco. He was familiar with the surrounding area. Perhaps he grew up in Vallejo, then moved to the city. Perhaps he was an outdoors enthusiast of some kind who regularly drove out into the country to go fishing or hunting.

But the bottom line is that I’m pretty sure he lived in SF at the time those letters were sent. His fixation is on SF more than any other place. The Chronicle is his favorite. And so forth.

Two very good points, Norse: Z sent all his correspondence from SF and when it comes to Z you have to throw out the serial killer rule book.

I look at it a little differently.

While I do agree he could have lived in Vallejo (and probably did at one point) and moved to S.F., I think his real fixation was with the Vallejo area. I think he liked the publicity the big city gave him, but Vallejo was where it hit home.

For my money, Z lived in Vallejo, and worked in SF. Letters were mailed on weekdays in SF, and Z was stalking and killing late nights in Vallejo.

Just an FYI Napa is absolutely on the way to lake beryessa from Vallejo. I don’t know how some one would go to beryessa from vallejo with out going through Napa.

Good point, morf. He could have worked in the city and commuted from Vallejo or the surrounding area. Could have rented a room in SF or commuted back and forth on a daily basis – either way, he would have had a good reason for being in SF at the time when the letters were posted. And the latter is important, I feel. I just don’t see him traveling to SF for the sole purpose of posting those letters – it seems like overkill and/or misguided if he was doing it to cover his tracks. SF is a big city. If his choice of location was a smokescreen he would have been better off driving to one of the smaller towns in the area and post his letters from there.

The most obvious reason why he posted the letters from SF is that he lived in SF – or, as morf suggests, that he worked there during the week.

Vallejo could have been his hometown, and SF where he lived at the time. He did appear to have a familiarity with Vallejo. I don’t doubt that. Maybe his work required him to travel all over Northern California. If he was smart he wouldn’t kill close to where he lived. I think Z was smarter than most on here believe he was.

Vallejo could have been his hometown, and SF where he lived at the time. He did appear to have a familiarity with Vallejo. I don’t doubt that. Maybe his work required him to travel all over Northern California. If he was smart he wouldn’t kill close to where he lived. I think Z was smarter than most on here believe he was.

I agree. Most likely the reason he wasn’t caught…and a little bit of luck.

I know this sounds like I’m back tracking, but as I have mentioned before I believe Kjell Qvale was somehow involved, and may even be Z himself, and if that is the case, than Z did indeed kill close to home. But in this case I don’t think it has much to do with intelligence. To be that close to home, it would have been about the thrill and the risk, and the power trip from getting away with it.

I know this sounds like I’m back tracking, but as I have mentioned before I believe Kjell Qvale was somehow involved, and may even be Z himself, and if that is the case, than Z did indeed kill close to home. But in this case I don’t think it has much to do with intelligence. To be that close to home, it would have been about the thrill and the risk, and the power trip from getting away with it.

Agreed. If (and it’s a big if, of course) KQ was Z the proximity to his home would have been part and parcel of the game for him. Even the seemingly outlandish idea to rush back home, change his clothes and appear on the street as a respectable citizen walking his dog, makes some sense to me IF we entertain the idea of KQ as Z.

Z didn’t follow an obvious pattern. He wasn’t a typical serial killer. I wouldn’t rule out any suspect based on their social or financial status. The seemingly preposterous nature of the notion itself; that a successful businessman went nuts, killed people for sport and wrote taunting letters about his exploits…certainly would have worked immensely to the killer’s favor if he WAS a successful businessman. Nobody would have suspected him back then. And even now many still seem to think that Z was a more standard perpetrator, i.e. a loner, someone with plenty of obvious issues, probably blue collar, etc.

I just don’t see someone of his stature, being so well known in the community, risking being seen like that. Possible, sure. Probable, not so much.

I am in agreement one doesn’t have to be poor or illiterate to do this. It could very well have been the exact opposite. What was going on with Zodiac was happening in his mind—it can certainly happen to wealthy and/or smart people too.