1) Paul Stine was a Ph.D. student of English in San Francisco State College (today: University).
2) zodiac sat in the passenger’s seat next to Stine upon murdering him, and Stine’s wife commented that Paul was rarely to allow his passengers to sit there unless he knew them.
3) In his letter to attorney Melvin Belli zodiac had used the archaic English word/verb "drownding" instead of "drowning"; he was also intentionally misspelling words for his own twisted pleasure.
Here’s my theory: zodiac and Paul might have knew each other from that College, and zodiac may have been a(n advanced degree) student of English like him. How about someone who’s with an access to the SFSC records will run a check on Paul Stine’s classmates/Fellow PhD students of that time (if zodiac wasn’t "25-30", as estimated by the 3 Robbins teens who saw him from a 20 meters distance, that he was on the years to graduate before Stine was supposed to)? We should look into men who were between the age of 35 to 45 (based upon Don Fouke) by 1969 and who have a round face (+ a widow’s peak if that wasn’t a wig).. A yearbook is the best material to work with.
That’s my poi: viewtopic.php?f=96&t=4009
2) zodiac sat in the passenger’s seat next to Stine upon murdering him, and Stine’s wife commented that Paul was rarely to allow his passengers to sit there unless he knew them.
While some have suggested this, including Inspector Toschi, there’s actually nothing that confirms this.
3) he was also intentionally misspelling words for his own twisted pleasure.
How do you know? He may have just been a really bad speller.
“Murder will out, this my conclusion.”
– Geoffrey Chaucer
It was shown that his mispelled words were actually portmanteau words.
It was shown that his misspelled words were actually portmanteau words.
By whom? Source?
“Murder will out, this my conclusion.”
– Geoffrey Chaucer
It was shown that his misspelled words were actually portmanteau words.
By whom? Source?
Sorry, I don’t subscribe to the theory that Zodiac was a criminal genius playing 3D chess and leaving hidden clues to find his identity. I believe it’s much more likely he was an under-educated schlub with sloppy handwriting who couldn’t spell.
“Murder will out, this my conclusion.”
– Geoffrey Chaucer
Which doesn’t really match with a criminal who defeated everyone trying to figure out his idenity and solve his codes for the last 50 years, you’ll have to admit.
Dennis Rader and Joseph DeAngelo also evaded capture for decades and they were hardly criminal geniuses.
“Murder will out, this my conclusion.”
– Geoffrey Chaucer
I’m not saying he was a genius, but he was obviously kinda smart. Bold, but smart. What about the radians? What about the Halloween card, for example?
I’m not saying he was a genius, but he was obviously kinda smart. Bold, but smart.
zodiac was probably slightly above average IQ, he was no genius that’s for sure, but only "sophisticated" in borrowing the ciphers to accompany his crimes (against random people that he tracked in places that he had examined in daylight to know well enough prior operating in them).
I bet he left many possible identification elements that he simply wasn’t aware of them being such by that time he was on the loose, like spitting in the crime scenes (probably in Lake Herman Road turnout and Lake Berryessa) touching the tree he took cover behind in Berryessa and touching that white cloth line he used to tie Bryan Hartnell and Cecilia Shepard with upon buying it or while it sat at his home which left finger prints there for sure, palm prints on the letters, shoe prints in all crime scenes, the bloody finger print of his right hand index finger obtained from Paul Stine’s cab.
I can make a safe bet that he wasn’t discouraged by blood, or even motivated by/enjoying it’s smell and that’s what kept him going while at it besides the aftermath’s adrenaline.
What about the radians? What about the Halloween card, for example?
The knowing of radians and referring to directions at times of describing his murders and victims’ positions show that he was familliar with directions in general and perhaps even with navigating, not necessarily from the military (as we campers/travellers know of, today), but also from a possible civilian occupation perspective; Like: working as a merchant mariner, who needs to know those basics of handling directions at the sea (as suggested by Robert Tarbox and that guy who was with David Faraday in the scouts who claimed that there was a rumor shortly after David was murdered that his killer was a weird Merchant Mariner from Benicia), I wouldn’t say he was an airplane pilot – but they’re also people who know how to work with those radians and do not necessarily been to the army.
Most chances are that he did some digging into/reading about navigations at the (high school? college?) library once and had obtained this knowledge. It’s not something classified, that only marksman in the army or military men know how to work with, it’s a simple mathmatic angle (57.296°) anyone can be taught about in the section of "Degrees" in his high school’s material. I bet even redneck (who’re not amature) hunters know about radians in order to navigate in the wild.
The Halloween Card had nothing sophisticated about it, it was just announcing he had murdered 14 people to date (he had last claimed he had killed 10 people to date, the usage of "4 teen" may hint he killed four more teenagers since the last count) and that he was familiar with the 1952 Tim Holt comics issue with the "wheel of death" and that it may be a hint to his name ("i’ll clue you in" next to the interior skeleton).
That’s my poi: viewtopic.php?f=96&t=4009
3) he was also intentionally misspelling words for his own twisted pleasure.
How do you know? He may have just been a really bad speller.
I can tell that because he spelled these words sometimes correctly and then incorrectly within the same letter (at times) and then correctly again in other letters.
It was also pointed by the offical LE proffesionals who examined his letters, it was his thing to "play himself illeterate" to mask his true identity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecOGk7IpQlo
I had studied all of his canonical letters, the only word that he kept on misspelling was "victom", which led me to write my own theory about that (based upon his Tim Holt supposed hint for his name in his letter for Paul Avery): viewtopic.php?f=96&t=4009
That’s my poi: viewtopic.php?f=96&t=4009
The Halloween card was modified and some elements were added to it, that’s what I meant.
3) he was also intentionally misspelling words for his own twisted pleasure.
How do you know? He may have just been a really bad speller.
I can tell that because he spelled these words sometimes correctly and then incorrectly within the same letter (at times) and then correctly again in other letters.
It was also pointed by the offical LE proffesionals who examined his letters, it was his thing to "play himself illeterate" to mask his true identity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecOGk7IpQloI had studied all of his canonical letters, the only word that he kept on misspelling was "victom", which led me to write my own theory about that (based upon his Tim Holt supposed hint for his name in his letter for Paul Avery): viewtopic.php?f=96&t=4009
I’m a school teacher by trade. I read things written by people of all manner of education an background. MANY people spell the same words correctly and incorrectly – sometimes within the same piece of writing.
Even Bryan Hartnell – who had the greatest interaction of any living witness – described Zodiac as "very unprofessional", "lower class", and a bit of an oaf. I feel – and this is my opinion – that anyone thinking that he is some criminal mastermind leaving esoteric clues is just chasing windmills. The truth is he was a rather unsophisticated and particularly lucky killer.
“Murder will out, this my conclusion.”
– Geoffrey Chaucer
I’m a school teacher by trade. I read things written by people of all manner of education an background. MANY people spell the same words correctly and incorrectly – sometimes within the same piece of writing.
Even Bryan Hartnell – who had the greatest interaction of any living witness – described Zodiac as "very unprofessional", "lower class", and a bit of an oaf. I feel – and this is my opinion – that anyone thinking that he is some criminal mastermind leaving esoteric clues is just chasing windmills. The truth is he was a rather unsophisticated and particularly lucky killer.
I agree on the points that he wasn’t a genius and a lucky son of a bitch. I don’t think that he was uneducated (as it seems from both my current theory post and other clues to his nerdy loser life prior creating the guise of the zodiac killer), I think that to pull out what he managed to do, requires a slightly above average IQ for planning (not that the everyday commoner even bothers his/her mind with killing people). That’s it about that.
If you ask Dave Slaight he’d tell you that the person who called in to announce the "double murder" in Berryessa was in his early 20s with a soft voice that at first made Slaight believe he was either a witness or a person who was sent by the local ranger to call for help and who was in no way connected to the event as the responsible, yet Nancy Slover said that the zodiac who called her was "over 30 years of age, that he sounded very malicious and with a deep voice until he reached his taunting "goodbye" at the end".
Bryan Hartnell said that the guy is anywhere between 20-30 years of age, dressed sloppy, with a drawl yet in 2007 said that zodiac (or whoever was in that mask if you go by some field of thoughts) had a "percise manner of talking" as if he was controlling the situation and not some average Joe who happens to have a gun at his expense (even though zodiac was very nervous upon stabbing them). Bryan also mentioned that the zodiac was afraid of him when he first stood up.
That’s my poi: viewtopic.php?f=96&t=4009
I’m a school teacher by trade. I read things written by people of all manner of education an background. MANY people spell the same words correctly and incorrectly – sometimes within the same piece of writing.
Even Bryan Hartnell – who had the greatest interaction of any living witness – described Zodiac as "very unprofessional", "lower class", and a bit of an oaf. I feel – and this is my opinion – that anyone thinking that he is some criminal mastermind leaving esoteric clues is just chasing windmills. The truth is he was a rather unsophisticated and particularly lucky killer.
I agree on the points that he wasn’t a genius and a lucky son of a bitch. I don’t think that he was uneducated (as it seems from both my current theory post and other clues to his nerdy loser life prior creating the guise of the zodiac killer), I think that to pull out what he managed to do, requires a slightly above average IQ for planning (not that the everyday commoner even bothers his/her mind with killing people). That’s it about that.
If you ask Dave Slaight he’d tell you that the person who called in to announce the "double murder" in Berryessa was in his early 20s with a soft voice, yet Nancy Slover said that the zodiac who called her was "over 30 years of age and with a deep voice until he reached his taunting "goodbye" at the end" and that he sounded very malicious. Bryan said that the guy is anywhere between 20-30 years of age, dressed sloppy, with a drawl yet in 2007 said that zodiac (or whoever was in that mask if you go by some field of thoughts) had a "percise manner of talking" as if he was controlling the situation and not some average Joe who happens to have a gun at his expense (even though zodiac was very nervous upon stabbing them).
Don’t forget that he does allude to acting and the theatre.
