The hood was a disguise just like the flash light(s)?. It’s a daytime disguise. The symbol because he might get spotted from a distance, he can’t control who’s on the lake shore or out on a boat and if he is seen it’s more proof it was him and if he has to make a run (limp?) for it he can do a reverse superman, which he did anyway unless he doodled on the car with it still on. I don’t know but I doubt it.

Why is the existence of the symbol in doubt btw? If I’m reading that inference correctly. Actually nevermind. I can’t believe half of what I’m reading anyway, I doubt having it explained to me will make it any better lol.

I think the hoax theory is a hoax. That’s my theory or is it my hoax? I’ll leave that up to you then when I think you’ve all contributed enough of my thinking for me I’ll publish it and reap the rewards. … or I’m completely wrong and the letter writer was Hitler. It’s one of the three.

Ok, it just came to me. Or had it already been said but I’m just remembering it, or expanding it? The whole thing was a sink hole for crimes. A way for LE to not pursue (to a conviction) certain murders for nefarious/protection reasons. A cover-up umbrella basically. Better make this one a Zodiac. Could have been the saying perhaps. Sorry LE if you’re reading this I’m not being serious. It’s probably a movie plot I’m sure. That’s how I usually get my information and view of reality. Or is that Lafferty’s book? I haven’t read it but the title just popped into my head.

Yup, one thing I never could stomach about living here is the rain and all the damn vampires.

You’re very naughty, Trav, being dreadfully sarcastic about what is after all a completely plausible theory.
You wait until I start mentioning the need for a rocket ship and the bit with the aliens and the rhubarb.

The symbol on the hood is only slightly in doubt. Very very slightly.

You mention a movie plot and I think that’s the bit I’m going to seize upon from your post – since I’m so selective.
If the story of a serial killer with a comic-strip name, funky science (like a torch-strapped-to-his-gun), a hood with a symbol on and etc. wasn’t actually, uh, true – why then it would be a marvellous story to use to sell books and movies, would it not? Ayuh!

Oh I’m sure it is (plausible) and I don’t mean to appear as if I’m pouring scorn or derision on it. Not ‘appear’ … nope. Lol, sorry I’m just being jovial. I think it’s a nice idea and it’s not as if what we know doesn’t lend itself to it. I’ll freely admit I don’t have the inclination to analyze it and it’s probably because it’s one of those things that can become compelling. I’ll leave that up to those who can/have.

I’m too lazy as well. Once it’s all been proved then one of you fine people can ‘splain it to me in a way that I can understand. I was being pseudo-sarky fwiw as a vehicle to provide a counter thought(s). Yes it is, as you say, naughty but not intended as rude or arrogantly dismissive. That was my previous posts lol.

Never any harm done mate – I always enjoy the banter!

A lovely expression that; you’ve been reading up on your idioms and vernacular. Highly impressive!

Yes, it’s remarkable. One of these days I may even learn to tie my own shoelaces.

When you do, I shall of course give you another splendid and sincere compliment.

This thread may have wandered slightly I think.
To recap: If the letters are a hoax the motive that seems to fit properly has "the letter writer was a mischevious troll" at its core.
And if it’s a journalist who is responsible, the added incidental benefits of improving the circulation of the Chronicle (and other newspapers), and beating up the SFPD seem to come into play. Getting more resource for the various police departments might do, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoax_letter_writers
http://hoaxes.org/weblog/comments/writi … _dear_abby
http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/tedremington.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/yo … ck-2053906

If it was a member of law enforcement who wrote the letters, that individual didn’t realise that they completely derailed the investigation from looking for multiple seperate individuals – or that they caused lots of other suspects to be ruled out based just on their handwriting and fingerprints.
Or just didn’t seem to care.

What about that report from Hal Snook, with its writing which looks Zodiac-esque?

I don’t think "troll" is quite right. A troll is more like a prankster. They don’t believe the things that they are saying and doing, they are just doing it to get a rise out of other people. With the hoaxer, they both are a power exercise to control people, but the difference is that a troll doesn’t want credit. In fact, it’s the secret knowledge that he is pulling people’s strings that appeals to him.

I would think that this sort of hoaxer wants the attention, wants the credit. He may not believe what he says, per se, because it’s not true, but in a sense he wants it to be true. Not to be a killer, I guess he is too cowardly, or at least has some level of human decency to not do that, but he wants the power that the killer has.

I have a hard time conceiving of a reporter doing this for ratings, unless he is a deranged individual. Which is possible, but it just seems like more effort than someone would be willing to go for for such an outcome. I think the idea of the reporter is that the hoax requires someone with inside information, but it doesn’t totally fit for me as far as motive goes.

I would think a police officer or someone working with them would be even less so. Unless their aim really was revenge or to expose incompetence, what they did in no way was helpful for the police, unlike a reporter trying to drive ratings.

i’ve mentioned a few times that i think lb could be the work of a hoaxer, the issues i have with the other killings as related to hoaxing are as follow:

brs – someone called le right after the shooting and took credit for lhr. this is waaaaay too consistent with the tone of the writer to be a coincidence. i’m sure it was reported in the papers that the killer made a phone call, etc, but it’s almost too perfect. you have a killer who wants to talk, but then we’re to suppose that the killer goes silent and a second party starts talking. seems too complicated.

stine – the shirt. everything i’ve read indicates that le had a strangely laissez-faire approach to evidence security (according to graysmith, stine’s shirt was lost for a period of time years later), however you’re talking about someone stealing a piece of stine’s shirt and getting a letter in the mail almost immediately. stine was killed around 10:00pm saturday and the letter with a piece of his shirt was postmarked monday afternoon. it speaks not only to luck but to immediacy if the perpetrator of the proposed hoax was able to get a piece of the shirt out of evidence and in the mail in such a quick period of time. who would have that access (to sfpd evidence), ability, and desire and also a connection to the vallejo area? not a lot of people.

I don’t think "troll" is quite right.

True.
It’s only ‘cos we’ve all heard of trolling in this day and age that I used the term. What was perpetrated was much worse than trolling – a simple "prank" – yes.
Whoever wrote the letters had access at Berryessa and the Stine scene or immediately after it to the body of Paul Stine or the property office etc. of SFPD, hence the idea of a reporter or a member of LE. That’s not necessarily the profile of this individual – but it does seem likely.
The LE angle seems less likely since the haox is a heinous crime in itself – very likely to assist murderers in going unpunished. But not all cops are good guys.
The reporter angle seems more likely, since the writing is good. The Confession letter, particularly smart – the collection of facts and their use in "bending the truth" to make some angles seem original matches the approach which would be taken by a reporter – the knowledge of newsroom processes and tems fits well too.
Does it have to have been someone from either of those trades? No. Do they seem the most likely? Well, yes. The "GREGG" thread perhaps has me taking this for granted..

….it speaks not only to luck but to immediacy if the perpetrator of the proposed hoax was able to get a piece of the shirt out of evidence and in the mail in such a quick period of time. who would have that access (to sfpd evidence), ability, and desire and also a connection to the vallejo area? not a lot of people.

Absolutely right.
Again, I think this immediacy and access is a function of the number of crimes scenes the writer attended and could physically access. If not Stine then someplace else, perhaps. (Did he visit the Radetich crime scene personally too, do you think? He obviously lifted Kathleen straight out of the pages of the Chronicle.)
Yes, he very probably had to have some very good reason or special ability of value which allowed him that access. A member of LE with cross-jurisdictional responsibilities and access, or a reporter. Not a lot of people. And the more crimes claimed, the more exposure.

When you do, I shall of course give you another splendid and sincere compliment.

I’m looking forward to the day, old bean – or is it sport?

Onwards and upwards (or downwards):

I recall reading something about the Yorkshire Ripper case a while back, more specifically about the hoaxer who was involved, “Wearside Jack” (who wrote several letters and made a phone call, pretending to be the killer): Now, there was this profiler (forget his name but he’s well known) who was allegedly consulted by the police back then and who told them in no uncertain terms that they were dealing with a hoaxer, not the real killer.

My question is this: Would a profiler be able to say something more or less useful about a) whether the letters and the crimes are a good match (in terms of…psychology?) and b) what sort of person the letter writer, considered exclusively as a letter writer and not a killer, would be?

Norse – I quite like the idea of "Old Top"; very 20’s.

Yes – a US_based profiler rejected the Wearside Jack tapes – and (after a while) so did UK dialect expert Professor Stanley Ellis.
Not until 3 more women had been killed, though.
With hindsight, writing “I’m Jack… I see you are still having no luck catching me” might be construed as a bit of a clew from the writer. It’s just a little bit third-party, that sentence.
Trouble is though, there was saliva on one of the envelopes revealing that the person who sealed it was a member of quite a rare secreter group – just as was the person (Sutcliffe) who attacked victim number 3. Bad luck, huh? One of those instances where physical evidence doesn’t help…..
Which reminds me of some footprints……

Re: Would a profiler be able to say something more or less useful about a) whether the letters and the crimes are a good match (in terms of…psychology?)– well they have already of course.
Every psychologist out to have an opinion heard has had a go, from educated men to stupid quacks – and a lot of profilers have had a bash, too. The FBI’s very own John E.Douglas in his book "The Crimes that Haunt Us" gives an insightful, impressive and ultimately (if you think the letters are a hoax) hilarious set of opinions about The Zodiac Killer. Guess what? The opinions tend to differ.
The jacket notes from Mr Graysmith describe him as "a sexual sadist." Mike_R often quotes his friendly expert – who is world-reknowned it’s said, as saying The Zodiac Killer was "power assertive". Which is a lovely expression.
I believe in the basic science that is criminal profiling, btw. Implicitly. Except of course when the opposite of "linkage blindness" happens, and joining the dots between apples and oranges rather gets in the way of things.

Re: and b) what sort of person the letter writer, considered exclusively as a letter writer and not a killer, would be? – I wonder? Since that’s a role I’ve tried to fulfil for my own amusement – and which I’ve encouraged other people to think about, it would be a hoot to find what a professional would make of the letters. If you could find one untainted with the knowledge that, of course, The Zodiac Killer actually existed….

Re. a) In profiling, the (differences) between these two personalities is what would break the bank.
Re. b) The similarities would not make a difference.The concept of just a letter writer is very interesting and thought provoking.

Yes. I guess the problem is that a profiler is likely to simply presuppose that he or she is chasing a killer (who liked to write letters) rather than a letter writer (who didn’t actually kill anyone). And as such what they have to say about the letters isn’t all that useful – in this particular context. Take the power assertive theory: If the killer was power assertive it’s fitting that he wrote letters to the press, because power assertive people like to brag and taunt, and they need to share their exploits with others. So, that’s a match – but it’s an overall match, so to speak: It doesn’t say anything about how the particular nature of the letters (the content, the style, the terrible spelling, etc.) lines up with the particular nature of the crimes.

Re. a) In profiling, the (differences) between these two personalities is what would break the bank.

BM (Hello there) How many "personalities" ARE involved here, potentially? Want to count them?
I make it:
2 or 3 Hepped-up garage-robbing bad lad teens at Lake Herman;
1 or 2 rival dope pusher(s) clearing away the competition at Blue Rock Springs. Maybe even a policeman;
1 schizophrenic "man on a mission for his newspaper-based comic hero" at Lake Berryessa and
1 stupid low-budget cab robber in Pacific Heights. (Who may also have been inspired by the newspapers, strangely enough. Hmmmm.)

That’s about six, isn’t it? If you throw in a (black guy?) Zebra killer taking out Officeer Radetich and you try real hard to believe Kathleen Johns the total goes to eight. If we can find a psychologist to average all those personalities then we’ll win!
(Oops! I missed poor CJB; make that nine.)

Re. b) The similarities would not make a difference.The concept of just a letter writer is very interesting and thought provoking.

The personality differences haven’t broken the bank as yet. Ain’t that amazing?
Successfully getting in close to write on the door and swipe pieces of shirt mean that the concept of a single killer survives and thrives.
Helpfully for the letter writer, there’s a tendency to continue trying to link in many more crimes, by geography, chronology and M.O.
…and it’s a nice wide MO. There may be a reason for that…..

Hello Smithy,
Thanks a bunch for the BM nickname.

I do not believe it is a hoax.One man.One man only.Butt, I do believe in looking at it and exploring the Z case from all the angles.Just as it looks like you have by offering up your views.

The topic of a hoax is valid.It has to be examined to rule it out.I do believe it would be insanely difficult to pull off.But yes- nevertheless as I stated- it is (thought provoking) to consider and take in and process. Since the ciphers and letters are my interest that is what I am focused on.I will examine them from all angles.

On the subject of Re.a) I meant to imply simply that if there was a (killer hoo wrote letters) verses a (lone letter writer) the profiling would be different for each-and the killer would have some qualities that would definitely put him in a separate category.

On the subject of Re.b) I meant to imply that if there had been a hoax both a killer and a lone letter writer could have written the letters and shared similar personality traits.

I was stating the obvious, of course.

Thank you for your thoughts! And Norse too.

Bmw