There are some things his confirmed attacks (4 in number) have in common. The first three he attacked young couples in intimate situations (ie. making out). The first two he shot bullets—it was night-time out in the country and he hoped no one would hear. (Apparently no one did.) At Lake Berryessa it’s possible he used a knife because it was still daylight and he didn’t want to risk the noise of gunshots. He started his media circus and by the time the Paul Stine murder rolled around he wasn’t concerned about finding young lovers any more—-now he had found his true calling—-master media manipulator. After the Stine murder he retreated into just the media circus, then I believe he found a less risky form of murder as the Unabomber—until his brother, or his sister-in-law, ratted him out.

There are some things his confirmed attacks (4 in number) have in common. The first three he attacked young couples in intimate situations (ie. making out). The first two he shot bullets—it was night-time out in the country and he hoped no one would hear. (Apparently no one did.) At Lake Berryessa it’s possible he used a knife because it was still daylight and he didn’t want to risk the noise of gunshots. He started his media circus and by the time the Paul Stine murder rolled around he wasn’t concerned about finding young lovers any more—-now he had found his true calling—-master media manipulator. After the Stine murder he retreated into just the media circus, then I believe he found a less risky form of murder as the Unabomber—until his brother, or his sister-in-law, ratted him out.

I’d love to see a + written by Ted Kaczynski..hair, widows peak and handwriting are definitely some sort of match. He was in Berkeley, too. Not sure if he had worn heavy-rimmed glasses (pic below a modification?). However he was not stocky at all. He also had no round face at all. Both of it makes me believe he was not Z. Any ties to Riverside? Or something else, besides the handwriting and the fact that he had produced bombs? In my opinion the way how slim Ted actually looks like on the picture below sort of rules him out..but the theory is ok, because the handwriting is really similar.

Another idea against the Ted Kaczynski theory…wouldn’t Mike Mageau recognized him from e.g. the media if he had been his attacker?

https://books.google.at/books?id=maiGcs … ky&f=false
QT

However he was not stocky at all. He also had no round face at all. Both of it makes me believe he was not Z.

That the FBI investigated the possibility of a Zodiac link after Kacynski’s arrest and ruled him it almost immediately makes me believe he was not Z.

Who told you that? That the FBI investigated Kazcinski and "ruled him out"?

Who told you that? That the FBI investigated Kazcinski and "ruled him out"?

"Unfortunately for proponents of this theory, Kacynski has been cleared of involvement in the Zodiac murders by both the FBI and the San Francisco Police Department. According to official reports, Kacnynski was exonerated of the murders by fingerprint and handwriting comparison, and by proof of his absence from California on five specific dates of known Zodiac activity."
The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers, Second Edition
by Michael Newton
p. 304

"There are just two problems with the sudden optimism of those who see Kaczynski as Zodiac.
First, the FBI isn’t planning to use his DNA for that case.
"No, we are only interested in the Tylenol murders," FBI Special Agent Ross Rice told me over the weekend — verifying for the first time that there is no wider investigative plan. "If we do get a DNA sample from him, that is what it will be used for."
Second problem with the Second problem with the UNAZOD theory: Zodiac fingerprint evidence and expert handwriting analysis ruled out Kaczynski years ago, along with travel records that place Kaczynski away from California on several of the key crime dates.
There is nothing publicly stated that makes the FBI believe Ted Kaczynski actually is the Tylenol killer."
‘Tylenol isn’t only case in which Unabomber is suspected’
by Chuck Goudie
Chicago Daily Herald, March 22, 2011

So you are accepting a book writer and a newspaper writer as authorities that Kazcinsky has been cleared or "exonerated" by the FBI. Yet they cite no statement from the FBI, except the statement which says the DNA will be used only for the Tylenol case. First, the DNA and especially the prints from the Zodiac case are essentially worthless. I don’t think they can actually be used to rule in or rule out any suspect. As to where TK was, he lived in Berkeley at the beginning of the Z murders, then he travelled a lot. But yes, this always happens when TK comes up as a suspect. Somebody says "he’s been cleared by the FBI" but closer inspection shows he was not cleared by the FBI at all but by some newspaper writer or book author.

So you are accepting a book writer and a newspaper writer as authorities that Kazcinsky has been cleared or "exonerated" by the FBI. Yet they cite no statement from the FBI, except the statement which says the DNA will be used only for the Tylenol case. First, the DNA and especially the prints from the Zodiac case are essentially worthless. I don’t think they can actually be used to rule in or rule out any suspect. As to where TK was, he lived in Berkeley at the beginning of the Z murders, then he travelled a lot. But yes, this always happens when TK comes up as a suspect. Somebody says "he’s been cleared by the FBI" but closer inspection shows he was not cleared by the FBI at all but by some newspaper writer or book author.

Okay, I’m not going to to get into this further, least of all here, where it’s incredibly off-topic. Ted’s fingerprints, handwriting, and known timeline were compared to Z’s and as a result, both the FBI and SFPD felt confident in ruling out any involvement. Those are facts. Ted was also never, at at any point in his life, heavy enough to have left the boot impressions found at the various Zodiac crime scenes. This too is a fact. You’re welcome to continue having this conversation (preferably with your fellow Unabom cultists in the Ted K section of this board) but I will not be joining you.

Yeah love this discussion…so obviously two things still can’t be pinned down: The reason why Z had killed and any type of specific MO..

QT

Pettibon Junction—You cannot cite any FBI statement or document exonerating Kaczinski, for the simple reason that no such statement or document exists. You are just accepting an unsourced newspaper article and and unsourced "encyclopedia" as truth. In your latest post you threw the SFPD into the mix. I assume you have a statement or document from this magnificent organization proving that TK is innocent of the Zodiac crimes?

In Kaczinsky’s journal he had a whole list of people he wanted to kill. Among them were promiscuous college kids. There’s the motive. The MO is fairly consistent, except when you bring in unproven, only suspected Zodiac murders. If you read my post above I explained that the Stine murder deviated because by that time he was more excited by his interplay with the press. I saw one professional profiler on youtube who said something along those lines. She said he wanted to finish off with one murder in the big city (SF), since that’s where the big newspaper, big publicity, etc. was.

He may have believed, after committing the murders in the Vallejo area, local law enforcement was getting closer. He might then have switched his methods and moved further away for his next victims, while creating the Zodiac persona as a means of diverting attention away from the local cases and the likelihood of a local actor in them. I’m not saying that’s what I believe, just offering it as a possible explanation for the irregularity you noted.

Zodiac, the letter writer, seems to be a person who lived outside himself. The Bates letter, assuming it was written by Zodiac, has the quality of cheap crime magazine writing. With the Mikado references he imagines himself as an executioner. He places himself into the "Most Dangerous Game" scenario as the hunter in the movie. The Deer Lodge Prison in Montana received national attention in 1959 after a riot there and was the subject of a big Life Magazine piece. He kits himself out to play the role. "Slaves in paradise" was probably borrowed from literature. He adopted jargon from diverse sources, either from trying to sound younger or because he liked phrases like "the Blue Meanies". The cipher technique in his earliest cipher is thought by some to have been inspired by a popular book on cryptography widely available at the time. He also talks with some frequency about movies. The idea of the Zodiac letter writer as the killer is unusual in the sense that to believe the letter writer was the actual killer requires you to believe that a fantasist stepped out of that way of involving himself with the world and actually became an active participant in it. Yet, it appears that is what he did, based on the details he knew about the early killings and the torn portion of Stine’s shirt. Again, very irregular behavior.

Looking for a common thread, and an explanation of how he could make those transitions, it is possible he conceived the idea of the murders in lucid moments and then committed them under the influence of drugs. That might account somewhat for the differences between the Zodiac in writing and in action. The same person, but existing in two different states of mind, almost looking at his own actions and reporting them as an observer.

He wrote false clues into his letters, but provided enough info that only the killer would know to prove the letter writer was the killer. In at least one of the letters, he wrote "I will prove to you…" and then proved it. As a professional mathematician (before he quit) that’s what Kaczinsky did for a living: prove stuff. As both the Zodiac and the Unabomber, he used letters to terrorize the larger community—-the Z with the "killing kids as they come off the school bus" letter and the Unabomber with the threat to blow up an airplane.

Yeah love this discussion…so obviously two things still can’t be pinned down: The reason why Z had killed and any type of specific MO..

The MO is there, as "modus operandi" simply refers to HOW a person kills. With Zodiac, we know: he kills in public places with either a handgun or a knife, the pistol being used to control the scene regardless of whether or not it is also used as the murder weapon. Further, he misrepresents himself to get close to his victims, using basic police tactics at BRS (per Mike Mageau) and, presumably, at LHR whereas at LB he misrepresents himself as an escaped convict and at PH, a normal, button-down guy catching a cab. (Misrepresntation as a vehicle for the exercise of control is a common theme at all the murders as well as in the letters, big time.) For all this talk of MO, Z’s is actually pretty consistent.

As for the WHY, he told us everything we need to know in letters, some of it expressly and the rest of it in subtext: Zodiac had a serious problem with male authority, which he saw as a hostile gatekeeper to the things he deserved in life. Had he an early interest in politics instead of pulp crime rags, the guy would have been Arthur Bremer and maybe gone gunning for Richard Nixon instead of Betty Lou Jensen. (This is where I make the concession that although he’s not the Zodiac, someone like Ted Kacynski has much more in common with him than, say, Gary Ridgeway does.)

I keep coming back to signature, so here it is, again: conquest. He’s punishing those who hurt him, particularly the men whom he perceives to have usurped or otherwise kept the affections of women from him, and asserting himself as the authority. Through these acts of violence, he becomes a conqueror.

The need for this sort of control as well as the source for the fantasies of revenge that led to this eventual acting out probably have their roots in a terrible childhood marked by some sort of abuse from an overbearing male figure in his life (I’d wager Z’s mother was a seductive, indulgent sort who was nonetheless useless when it came to protecting him) as well as continuous, sustained social/romantic rejection in his teens and early adulthood. Furthermore, it has increasingly been my belief that Zodiac, at the time of the murders, was a younger man who may have still resided in the same unhappy childhood home he grew up in, which would have been a serious contributing factor to his violent outbursts (what those in forensic psychology refer to as a trigger).

Of course, all of this is IMHO, as I am hardly board-certified.

I don’t think you can tell motive from the letters, which might well be nothing but a whole lot of false clues ( along with the proof that he actually perpetrated his four attacks.) Kaczinsky intentionally created a false persona in his Unabomber letters, and he had the FBI believing the Unabomber was an airplane mechanic with a high school education, when in reality he was a PHD in mathematics and an avid reader on a wide variety of subjects.

I don’t think you can tell motive from the letters, which might well be nothing but a whole lot of false clues ( along with the proof that he actually perpetrated his four attacks.) Kaczinsky intentionally created a false persona in his Unabomber letters, and he had the FBI believing the Unabomber was an airplane mechanic with a high school education, when in reality he was a PHD in mathematics and an avid reader on a wide variety of subjects.

We’re not talking about Ted Kacynski in this thread, we’re talking about the Zodiac Killer. There is no hard evidence confirming the two are the same person so PLEASE stop using "well, Ted did X so Zodiac couldn’t have done Y" as an argument.