There’s long been many theories put forward as to the reasons for Zodiac disappearing from the spotlight and, officially, cannot be linked to any other homicide after the murder of Paul Stine in late 1969. So, I was watching a documentary about Ted Bundy the other week, and even thought it’s well documented and known that Ted escaped from prison not just once, but twice, I realized something for the first time.
If I were in prison, facing a lenghty term, almost certain to be for life in Ted case at the minimum, probably and likely that he will get sentenced to Death, I would probably want to escape desperately also. But, while watching the documentary about Bundy, I suddenly realised that Bundy is probably the only inmate in history to be so desperate to get out of this prison not for freedom and liberty itself, but because a lack of freedom would mean he could no longer strangle, bludgeon and sexually assault his favoured victim type. This was the reason, it seem to me anyway, that he felt a compulsion to escape.
If I, or any other ‘Normal’ prisoner had planned, then made a successful escape froma prison and were now free, I would do everything I could to ensure that I fell below Law Enforcement’s radar, and I’d make an extra effort to not draw any attention to myself in order to increase the chances of retaining my newly found freedom. Bundy, from the second he was the other side if the prison wall after escaping, had no thought or intention of keeping a low profile and trying to stay away from any situation that may bring himself, and the Law, into close proximity. Bundy’s sole motivation for escape was the overwhelming desire to snuff out the life of more young women and this is a scary thought, that there exists certain people that are so evil, they are determined to escape societys attempts to keep them where they cannot darry out their evil desires, that they will do whatever it takes to escape (In Bundy’s case, this involved jumping from a prison library window several stories in up, that would likely result in a leg break, and the second time, climbing through a vent in the roof of his cell, and navigating his way to freedom. For me, and anyone else reading this, our intent and desire to escape would be to regain simply our freedom, with Bundy, it was to regain his freedom to obtain another victim. And this is where a comparison to Zodiac, the case of Zodiac seems to end in a way that doesn’t seem to conform to what is accepted as a ‘Serial Killer’, namely, that a serial killer will not, and in fact cannot, simply stop killing untill they are caught and stopped by LE.
There are many theories to suggest Zodiac was imprisoned for something else, maybe a murder that wasn’t linked to him as Zodiac elsewhere, and this would be one explination. Possible, but unlikely. Zodiac certainlly doesn’t seem to have been put away for murder, as he randomly re-surfaces with the odd letter during the 70’s (That’s if you believe the letters of 1974 – 1978 are genuine.
Maybe Zodiac Died? Again, the letters suggest otherwise. Then then also one of his final letter’s (as they start to decrease in frequency and volume) in which Zodiac seem’s to imply that he will no longer announce his crimes, and will make them look like accidents etc etc. This single line written by Z ‘I shall no longer announce my Crimes’ is the most odd, unexpected, non likely and counter-intuitive thing for him to say, and then subsequently follow through with. It has left me wondering many times becase of this, was ‘Zodiac’s’ and his ‘Persona, personality and character all a totally invented one? I doubt it. But, if the persona and very existance of ‘Zodiac’ was created in order to, lets say, make one or two targeted assainations appear to be the work of this random, unstable, psychotic and myterious serial killer, then this would account for Zodiac’s apparant total reversal from being seemingly obsessed with, and demanding front pages of, the papers, to suddenly seeming to have a complete personality transplant and no longer is concerned with media attention and will stop writing. This would also explain how Zodiac, at least officially, seem’s to have not only lost his absolute need, compulsion, desire and fasination with playing his cat and mouse game while writing the news paper headlines, but also how his aswel as his personality seems to suddenly do a complete 360 degree turn on itself, but so does the alledged compulsion to kill, as 95% of other serial killers seem to never be able to rid themselves of.
And finally, there is other factors in this case that support the theory that Zodiac was a persona created by person/person’s unknown to offer up to the public as the psychopath responsible for this spate of ‘random’ murders. I would like to clarify, that I am not stating this as my own opinion per say, or that this theory more likely than the one where Zodiac is simply as he appears, a random psychopath with a lust for murder.
But several aspects of the Zodiac case are odd, well, simply seem to make no sense at all really. Firstly, The murdered doesn’t say a word, send a letter, make a phone call, or any other way, to take credit for/brag about being responsible for the double homicide at Lake Herman untill 7 Months later after comitting his second attack. Then the ‘Zodiac Persona’ comes into the public arena, taking credit for the recent attack at BRS, but also for the LHR murders 7 Months prevoiusly. Why would he wait untill comitting his second attack at B. Rock Springs to formally take credit for the L.Herman Rd murders? Was the Murder of Darlene Ferrin a pre planned assassination, and to divert suspicion from thoes she was aquainted with, the Serial Killer personality was created and released to coincide with this murder? Anyway, it hasn’t escaped my attention that I appear to have yet again tried to turn a forum ‘Post’ into a forum ‘Essay’ lol.
"So it’s sorta social. Demented and sad, but social, right?" Judd Nelson.
Lots of stuff to chew on there.
Not all serial killers go on "kill crazy rampages" some them really do just commit a few murders and no more, or put a lot of space between them. It really depends on the motivation more than anything else. I don’t think we can really say there are hard rules that they always abide by.
The idea that Z or whomever wanted to commit say, one murder, and committed the rest as diversion from it is possible I guess, but it doesn’t really make a lot of sense because that person utterly fails to get the attention away from his victim by telling everyone that "he" did it and linking it to a bunch of other crimes insuring that it receives the most attention it possibly could! If you wanted to make that work it would be best to not say anything about the intended murder, and then use "zodiac" for the other ones.
The idea that he wanted to assassinate all of them and "z" was just a smoke and mirror really doesn’t add up based on the fact that two of the victims lived. If you’re a serial killer, no biggie, you’ll just kill someone else anyway. If you’re an assassin, it’s kind of a big deal.
I’ve been thinking about the "Z knew Dee" idea, and the thing about that is, if it’s true, how do you factor in Riverside?
Lots of stuff to chew on there.
Not all serial killers go on "kill crazy rampages" some them really do just commit a few murders and no more, or put a lot of space between them. It really depends on the motivation more than anything else. I don’t think we can really say there are hard rules that they always abide by.
The idea that Z or whomever wanted to commit say, one murder, and committed the rest as diversion from it is possible I guess, but it doesn’t really make a lot of sense because that person utterly fails to get the attention away from his victim by telling everyone that "he" did it and linking it to a bunch of other crimes insuring that it receives the most attention it possibly could! If you wanted to make that work it would be best to not say anything about the intended murder, and then use "zodiac" for the other ones.
The idea that he wanted to assassinate all of them and "z" was just a smoke and mirror really doesn’t add up based on the fact that two of the victims lived. If you’re a serial killer, no biggie, you’ll just kill someone else anyway. If you’re an assassin, it’s kind of a big deal.
I’ve been thinking about the "Z knew Dee" idea, and the thing about that is, if it’s true, how do you factor in Riverside?
Well that’s easy…..You don’t. I don’t think Zodiac was responsible for Cheri Bates murder because Zodiac himself wrote in one of his letter "To Prove I am the Zodiac, ask the Vallejo cop about the gun sight I used to start my collecting of slaves".
As you know, the reference Zodiac makes above is in reference to him committing the double murders at Lake Herman Road. So, before the words ‘Zodiac’ and ‘Riverside’ were ever printed by the Chronicle, Zodiac himself states that his first attack had been on Betty & David. But, around 18 months later, Paul Avery think’s Zodiac may have killed in Riverside in 1966, and he promptly publishes his theory and suspicion in the Chronicle for all to read….Including Zodiac. Once Avery publically names Zodiac as a potential suspect for Cheri Jo’s homicide, Zodiac decides to respond and proclaim them correct, even taking time to congratulate them on making the connection saying ‘I do have to give them credit for stubmling across my Riverside activity…’
When Detectives said publically that they did not believe Zodiac was responsibe for the Lake Herman attacks, and would need him to convince them with proof (A ploy on the part of Detectives to tempt Zodiac to communicate), Zodaic responded to their request with these very words…
"In answer to your asking for more details about the good times I have had in Vallejo, I shall be very happy to supply even more material…" and went on to do just that. Zodiac seems almost too happy to oblige them as he gleefully states that he will be only too happy to supplymore info, implying a sort of "It is no bother, really. I’d be more than happy to assist with your request and will enjoy doing so in order to banish any doubts you may have".
So, when Avery writes the article and points the finger at Zodiac as possibly being responsible, was Zodiac offering detail after detail to show any one that doubted, that he was responsible? No. Zodiac offeres nothing over or above the ‘I must give ‘them’ credit for stumbling across my Riverside activity’. Zodiac has obviously read in the Chronicle that the murder he is now suspected of had been committed in Riverside, but seem’s to leave it as general as that. The reason he isn’t specific with the location of the murder, as he was when speaking of the Lake Herman murders, was because he didn’t know where in Riverside this girl was murdered. Thats just my opinion anyway. I’m assuming from you question of how we can factor Riverside in, that you believe Zodiac did kill Bates?
"So it’s sorta social. Demented and sad, but social, right?" Judd Nelson.
I’m on the fence for Z killing Bates, but his handwriting was matched to the letters in the case and even more importantly to the desktop found at RCC library, so I have to say that means he was there at least at some point. I have a hard time believing that if he didn’t live there he would go there several different times to mail the letters taking credit for a murder he didn’t commit, especially if he wasn’t even there at the time of the murder. To me that says he had a connection to Riverside in general and maybe to RCC/Cheri Jo specifically, above just visiting there on occasion.
Yeah I am totally willing to accept the possibility that Z was responsible for Cheri’s murder. I’m not overly familiar with the circumstances surrounding the Bates case and evidence, so what handwriting, other than the desk top poem, did Morill match to Zodiac’s? The only communications in the Bates case i’ aware of is the ‘Confession’ letter (which was type written), and the ‘BATES HAD TO DIE, THERE WILL BE MORE’ brag/threat.
And the truth is, it’s just accepted as fact it would seem that the desk top poem is about the murder of Bates. Theres no evidence that it is anything to do with Cheri and the murder. It could have been written as a sick joke after her death. Unlikely I admit, but possible never the less. The writing on the desk to is scratched/etched into the wooded desk top if i’m not mistaken, which would tend to suggest that the writing isn’t likely natural but ‘forced’.
However, on the flip side there are a lot of similarities, the excess postage to name the main one.
But serial killers never target someone they know personally. Having said that though, serial killers usually have a victim type, MO etc…Z didn’t seem to care, his MO appears to be the game with Police played out for everyone to follow in the Chronicle so the public could see who had the upper hand in his little murder game. If Bates wen’t into that Ally freely with her killer then that tends to suggest, based on what is known about Cheri, that she felt comfortable enough because she knew him, knew of him, or at he was around her own age at the very least, unless it was a teacher (she would probably accept help from a Riverside staff member she recognised). Here’s why I just can’t see Z being Bates assailant…
Z would have to be around her age, which doesn’t seem likely considering his knowledge of cryptography & his apparant military background. Don Foukes description of Z as 35-45.
But, we will probably never know for sure. (Sorry for going off topic cubject slightly, but if Z was Bates assailant and knew her personally, then it is relevant because that’s not something serial killers are known to do. It would be inviting suspicion)
"So it’s sorta social. Demented and sad, but social, right?" Judd Nelson.
Alex,
Well, it’s quiet, so I’ll bite, and espouse a few wacky theories. 
"The Zodiac" may not conform to the "known rules of serial killers" is your premise.
Are there any rules? Eh? Yes we can generalise about the kind of people who commit serial crimes, but since we’re always talking about individuals – there’s always the possibility of a surprise, right? Wacky theory number one – everyone’s different.
"The Zodiac" might not actually have killed all of the victims he claimed. Eh? That would mean trying to put the different MO’s and different types of behaviour, and different weapons, and trying to hang labels like "power assertive" (Sorry!) on "him" would be a little bit pointless.
Ummm, everyone’s different – the killers might be – Wacky theory number two.
"The Zodiac" may have been "rehearsing" for his later campaign, at Riverside. Unsuccessfully bidding for attention, with not enough inside information to make it stick. Wacky theory number three.
Pick the bones out of those! 
Alex,
Well, it’s quiet, so I’ll bite, and espouse a few wacky theories."The Zodiac" may not conform to the "known rules of serial killers" is your premise.
Are there any rules? Eh? Yes we can generalise about the kind of people who commit serial crimes, but since we’re always talking about individuals – there’s always the possibility of a surprise, right? Wacky theory number one – everyone’s different."The Zodiac" might not actually have killed all of the victims he claimed. Eh? That would mean trying to put the different MO’s and different types of behaviour, and different weapons, and trying to hang labels like "power assertive" (Sorry!) on "him" would be a little bit pointless.
Ummm, everyone’s different – the killers might be – Wacky theory number two."The Zodiac" may have been "rehearsing" for his later campaign, at Riverside. Unsuccessfully bidding for attention, with not enough inside information to make it stick. Wacky theory number three.
Pick the bones out of those!
"The Zodiac" might not actually have killed all of the victims he claimed." Good job you told me, for the past 7 years I have always believed everything Zodiac said was The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Shocking!
"and trying to hang labels like "power assertive" (Sorry!) on "him" would be a little bit pointless" Smithy I really don’t think Zodiac would require my assistance to ‘put a label on him’, in this case accuse him of being power assertive, he doesn’t seem to need any help in doing that;
‘If you don’t want me to have this blast you must do two things. 1 Tell everyone about the bus bomb with all the details’
‘School children make nice targets, I think I shall wipe out a school bus some morning’.
‘PS could you print this new cipher on your frunt page? I get awfully lonely when I am ignored, so lonely I could do my Thing!!!!!!’
‘. I have killed ten people to date. It would have been a lot more except that my bus bomb was a dud.’ etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc lol.
And if understanding what drove him, his motivations etc are pointless in your eyes, then thats your opinion and each to their own 
And finally Whacky theory No. 3 lol. "The Zodiac" may have been "rehearsing" for his later campaign, at Riverside. Unsuccessfully bidding for attention, with not enough inside information to make it stick."
What, you mean something like, just off the top of my head at random, "I do have to give them credit for stumbling across my riverside activity, but they are only finding the easy ones, there are a hell of a lot more down there." Lol.
"So it’s sorta social. Demented and sad, but social, right?" Judd Nelson.
Alex – always ready to help point out that he’s a liar to people – pleased you’re onto it now. 
Nice quotes. So writing nasty letters make’s him "power assertive"? Lesson learned for me. Touche!
It’s pointless to try and assign a motive or a group of motives which generalise across ALL the crimes, if they’re not all connected. Yes?
Last point, Noooooo, I don’t mean he lied again trying to expand his claims, I mean he tried to start the same kind of campaign in ’66 – and failed.
Alex – always ready to help point out that he’s a liar to people – pleased you’re onto it now.
Nice quotes. So writing nasty letters make’s him "power assertive"? Lesson learned for me. Touche!
It’s pointless to try and assign a motive or a group of motives which generalise across ALL the crimes, if they’re not all connected. Yes?
Last point, Noooooo, I don’t mean he lied again trying to expand his claims, I mean he tried to start the same kind of campaign in ’66 – and failed.
Smithy it’s not so much what he wrote in regards to ‘nasty’ things that gives the impression he desires power and control, its his demands that come with his ‘Nasty’ threats and boasts. To point to just three examples of this:
"If you don’t want me to have this blast you must do two things. 1 Tell everyone about the bus bomb with all the details."
"PS could you print this new cipher on your frunt page? I get awfully lonely when I am ignored, so lonely I could do my Thing!!!!!!"
"I want you to print this cipher on the frunt page by Fry afternoon Aug 1-69. If you do not print this cipher, I will go on a kill rampage Fry night. This will last the whole weekend, I will cruse around killing people who are alone at night untill Sun Night or un till I kill a dozen people"
All jokes aside Smithy, you really think it’s premature to assume this man has an apparant desire to feel as thought he has power & control over people, after Zodiac states things like the three comments above?
"So it’s sorta social. Demented and sad, but social, right?" Judd Nelson.
WC, you’ve agreed he’s a liar – you pointed that out (indeed you think it’s laughable that you wouldn’t have noticed it, and so do I!) – and yet you quote those same letters to demonstrate aspects of his personality, and characteristics, which you’re sure about.
Before we talk about what "rules" he may or may not conform to, how can we first be assured that all the crimes are related, and that our single suspect committed all of them? How big ARE the lies, I want to know.
If Riverside was an attempt at the same "power and control" (?) letter campaign as was successful later, what’s the difference between the campaigns?
BTW I think his little tantrum "So lonely I could do my Thing!!!!!!" (six exclamation marks eh? He WAS serious) is a ridiculous low point.
"I’ll scream and scream and scream until I’m sick! I can!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3OO42dKxfY
Smithy what are you talking about? Lol. I agreed Zodiac is a lair yes. But you then make a comment about it being pointless and basically speculative to try and claim Zodiac’s crime were driven by a need to dominate, a power hungry nut, so to speak. Smithy, I can assure you that I don’t just form opinions and/or make assumption because I want to or because I can, I base my opinion (Note the word, Opinion!) on what is known of Zodiac. Zodiac Manipulated the press to his advantage, using them to print his latest threats, brag’s, claims and demands and by doing this held a City in fear wondering ‘who will be next?’ None of the victims were molested or raped, so we can rule out a sexual motive. I base my opinion about Zodiac being on a severe power trip not on the words he spoke to brag and threaten, but the words he wrote to demand they be printed and on what page, etc. Are you suggesting that Zodiac was lying when demanding he have his cipher printed, or his threat about the bomb printed?
"So it’s sorta social. Demented and sad, but social, right?" Judd Nelson.
WC – I’m talking about your topic.
You suggested that "Z doesn’t conform to the known rules of serial killers". That’s your topic, right?
He started in ’66, waited until ’69. lied about a double stabbing, kidnapped a woman in her car (probably lied about that too), then stopped. Forever.
That’s pretty odd. Even by BTK standards that’s odd.
The crimes seem so "unrelated" too, it’s very odd.
They seem to veer between organised and disorganised, from blitz (LHR and BRS) to pre-meditated (at Berryessa – he brought a hood(!) and some rope – he was prepared). Odd.
The victimology seems to change, too, from a single girl (Riverside, HA! yeah right), to a young couple, to another couple, to a STABBING, to the shooting of a cab driver. (!) Odd.
The weapons differed too. There’s no fixed MO there. Odd.
The times of day and days of the week vary too. As do the location types.
(And please, let’s not start saying "Venus was rising" or any of that astronomical BS or I shall snort, loudly). Odd
The strangeness is so – strange – that it’s almost seems like he’s actually NOT a proper serial killer at all. You’re right! Astounding! How can that be?
Are you with me?
I agree. "Z does NOT conform to the known rules of Serial Killers". True!
In Respect To The Crimes Particularly.
My Wacky Theory Number One – everyone’s different!!!
But even in a marvellously different and diverse world, with serial killers popping up like daisies, we don’t have much to compare our favourite Zodiac Killer to – just as you say.
Agreed?
I will of course try and move on to my second wacky theory, if this first one makes sense to you.
(You don’t have to agree with it of course. Even though the premise of the thread does!)
You can quote the letters again if I move on to theory (wacky) two, I promise. It’ll be fun. Yes?
BTW I think his little tantrum "So lonely I could do my Thing!!!!!!" (six exclamation marks eh? He WAS serious) is a ridiculous low point.
"I’ll scream and scream and scream until I’m sick! I can!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3OO42dKxfY
Yes..sounds like a bratty 8 year old boy whining at the toy store for not getting his way.
I don’t think Zodiac was your typical serial killer and part of me even wonders if he actually liked killing at all. Except for Berryessa there was no personal involvement at all. Not that you have to touch or communicate to be a serial killer…I just think it was done more for personal glory than a desire to kill–as with BTK, GRK, Bundy, etc., etc.
“…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
Tahoe – thanks for throwing me this particular bone.
Time out!! Am I going to get Two for the price of one? Smithy! You are too kind! To many, being outnumbered and challenged publically over something is disheartening and maybe even intimidating. To me, this is like being in a sale where I have just been told by a sales rep "Special offer: But one regular Smithy, and get a Tahoe absolutely free."
Rite, back to the post and subject. Ah yes, Smithy, you stated that you were going to lay out a second theory in the last post you posted….
"I will of course try and move on to my second wacky theory, if this first one makes sense to you. (You don’t have to agree with it of course. Even though the premise of the thread does!)" Well, now that I have been made aware that I can disagree with the theory if I wish to do so, I feel far better and eager to hear what this theory is.
The floor is yours Smithy….
(No but seriously mate, I honestly am interested to head what you have to suggest. That theory you have which we spoke about earlier, that you said is not welcomed by most as possible, is actually something I would agree with you about in that it’s no less likely to be correct than a theory that rivals it claiming something opposite. Just because you may have an opinion on something specific regarding Zodiac that is not held by the overwhelming majority of others, does not make that theory far less likely to be correct, the theory itself isn’t what should be questioned, but rather the reasons given by those that refuse it). That has just reminded me of something you said in earlier in one of the messages you sent which I intended to mention in the initial reply but forgot. It is something I agree totally with you about, which s odd for you an I to share an opinion identical to each other. So, fire away with the theory…
"So it’s sorta social. Demented and sad, but social, right?" Judd Nelson.
