It’s not BS, but by the FBI’s own admission, neither is it a Science. Many profilers will freely admit that it is just educated guess work and that many times they are way off the mark. I have seen some profilers who are, without wishing to sound disrespectful, useless at profiling. But then there are the Roy Hayzelwood’s and John Douglas’ of the World and they have a high degree of accuracy in the majority of their profiles. It’s a skill that you either can do that is probably a lot of instinct, or you can’t.

I have no idea to this day how Douglas knew and stated "Suspect will have a stutter" when he profiled the then at large serial killer Robert Hansen.

Lots of spittle at the crime scenes. (Just ask me and I’ll tell ya.)

Back to "Does Z conform to the known rules of serial killers?" In my humble opinion, if you examine the activities undertaken at JUST the crime scenes, and try to make sense of them with the few usual behavioural "rules", nope. He doesn’t. Viewing the crimes alone, he is both organised and disorganised, both cold-blooded and highly engaged, he both planned and also attacked targets of opportunity. He’s a variable little sucker.

If you expand the "study" to take in the letters, you can then use them to explain his escalation at the crime scenes as part of a series, give him a "public persona" and a "publicity" motive which helps make sense of things (hey – just as Douglas managed to, in his book "The Cases that Haunt Us"), but without that framework? The Zodiac is annoyingly all over the map. By knife, by gun, by John, Paul, George and RIngo.

In the lexicon of serial criminals, who was as variable, in the context of four linked crimes? I’m wracking the old brain trying to think of someone. There WILL be someone of course.

Off the top of my head, Richard Ramirez. He committed murders by gun, by knife, by rope, by bludgeon. No fire, though. He did rapes, no rapes, mutilation, no mutilation, robbery, no robbery, inside the home, outside in the park.

Yes, I was thinking of Ramirez – trying to make it easy. FOUR of his crimes, though linked, with such a variable MO? Even with his productive output, it’s tough to find them. Four crimes, four "different" weapons, one in daytime? (Outside in the park?)
Ramirez used a knife, hammer and a small calibre gun, .22 or .25, and rather helpfully left pentagrams, footprints and so on, but within four crimes, hmmmm.
I’ve settled on Richard Kuklinski, although perhaps he’s not a fair example.
It’s not common, this odd variety.

It’s not common, this odd variety.

True, but maybe that’s because variant MO’s in serial murder often go undetected. As you said would we know it was Z without the letters? If not, then how many other crimes out there were not added up because they lacked an overreaching connection? Perhaps a lot. And Zodiac still hasn’t been caught either because of a lack of evidence.

Even back in the day, but now more than ever, a disorganized killer is almost certain to get caught, and an organized one stands a better chance of getting away with it. The phenomenon of serial murder has evolved with the times.

There used to be a good article talking about the accuracy of serial murder classification. A good case in point is the Atlanta Child Murders. largely because of media pressure, but other social factors as well, the police basically just lumped all of their unsolved child homicides into one case and have subsequently revised that assessment. Unfortunately I couldn’t find a good critical article on the subject since the only ones available are one guy who promotes Satanic Panic and thinks there are no serial killers, and a bunch of racists objecting to the white male profile of serial killers.

So you don’t think Ramirez was like other serial’s and didn’t show a clear Method of Attack? Richard Ramirez always broke into the homes of his victim/victims after dark and carried out the murders and rapes there. So to say Ramirez did not show a consistent MO is ridiculous to be honest. Every time a murder was discovered in a home with the victim/victims seeming to have fell victim to an intruder during the night the LAPD knew this was the signature of ‘The Night Stalker’. Plus, he raped many of the female victims, regardless of their age. So the method of attack is entering the home, and his motive, it could be argued, was sexual in nature

When Ramirez struck it always meant victims being found dead in their homes after an intruder had attacked them at night. The LAPD and the papers always knew the next day that ‘The Night Stalker’ had struck again. Clearly he had clear motive and means of operation. Could the SFPD do that after Zodiac’s 4th victim was doscivered slumped in his taxi? Not a chance. He had to tell them who was responsible before anyone even suspected him. I am baffled as to how Ramirez can be likened to Zodiac for not conforming to the ‘normal’ serial killer rules. Ramirez always struck at night. Zodiac did not. Ramirez always attacked his victims within their own homes showing a clear MO. Zodiac did not. Ramirez raped a number of his victims suggesting at least part of his motivation was sexual. Zodiac did not.

What was consistent about Zodiac that we can put our finger on and say "Yes, that is something he always did" that could help to show motive or MO? I’m interested to know.

What was consistent about Zodiac that we can put our finger on and say "Yes, that is something he always did" that could help to show motive or MO? I’m interested to know.

1. Victims attacked in public places.

2. Firearm always involved, be it as the murder weapon or as a means to control the victims.

3. No attempt whatsoever made to conceal crime or hide bodies.

4. No sexual molestation.

5. Bragging about the killings afterwards via letters, with attached proof that he committed the murders.

What was consistent about Zodiac that we can put our finger on and say "Yes, that is something he always did" that could help to show motive or MO? I’m interested to know.

1. Victims attacked in public places.

2. Firearm always involved, be it as the murder weapon or as a means to control the victims.

3. No attempt whatsoever made to conceal crime or hide bodies.

4. No sexual molestation.

5. Bragging about the killings afterwards via letters, with attached proof that he committed the murders.

Ok so now tell me the Zodiac’s Motive.

And you point out that one of his consistent traits was bragging about his crimes by letter after committing them and adding proof.

Ok, show me the bragging letter he sends after Lake Berryessa along with proof. And can you tell me also, if this is something he is consistent in doing, why he doesn’t do it after Lake Herman Rd, and waits 7 Months and another second attacks before taking credit for the first? I would also like to know how this consistent braggart who appears to love the spotlight, decides out of nowhere that he will no longer announce his killings? Is that what a consistent Serial Killer does, go from seemingly being absolutely obsessed with making the papers and threatened many times there would be consequences if they did not publish his letters, to a killer who then decides that he doesn’t want to tell them anymore and the serial killer simply vanishes as quickly as he appeared on Dec 20, 1968.

WC are you talking to me about Ramirez? As I pointed out he DIDN’T attack all of his victims in the their homes, he DIDn’T rape all of his victims, and he didn’t use the same type of weapon every time, amongst other distinctions.

So that does mean he "doesn’t conform to the rules of serial killers", sure he does. As you said his motive is the same every time, he’s clearly a sexual sadist with escalating tendencies from theft, to rape, to murder. To "get off" by terrorizing his victims was his motivation. To attack a random target who he noticed as vulnerable and to leave them as he found them afterwards, that never changed. His MO did change, because that is just a means to an end, not the end itself.

That’s the difference between MO and signature. MO is the means to an end, the "end" is the signature, the thing that fulfills the fantasy of the killer and that thing doesn’t change.

The thing’s that Nacht pointed out are the Z’s signature moves. Bragging about the crime is his number one thing and he always does it. He waited after LHR, but he still did it. He didn’t have to tell anyone about that, he could have "come out" as Zodiac and went from there, but he had to let them know "the score." At LB he wrote on the car and mentioned it in his letter and phoned it in. That’s three ways he bragged. The method doesn’t matter.

His motivation? Perhaps, "I like killing because it’s so much fun…"

Ok so now tell me the Zodiac’s Motive.

Motive seems pretty cut and dried to me. This was an angry young man, brain overrun with savage fantasies of revenge, who wanted to lash out at and permanently scar the society that he thought had wronged him.

I think every one of Zodiac’s targets corresponded to a figure in his life whom he had a beef against. Young couples may have corresponded to the girl who jilted him and her new suitor, or even to popular students at his school who ostracised him. He may have gotten into trouble with the law, hence taunting the police (or maybe they were a surrogate for an authority figure, possibly his father). Goodness knows who Paul Stine corresponded to, although I have a hunch that the Presidio Heights shooting was an impulsive, spur-of-the-moment act.

In today’s day and age, a teenage Zodiac would probably have shot up his school. I think of Zodiac as belonging to the exact same class of homicidal individual as Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold and Cho Seung Hui.

Ok, show me the bragging letter he sends after Lake Berryessa along with proof. And can you tell me also, if this is something he is consistent in doing, why he doesn’t do it after Lake Herman Rd, and waits 7 Months and another second attacks before taking credit for the first? I would also like to know how this consistent braggart who appears to love the spotlight, decides out of nowhere that he will no longer announce his killings? Is that what a consistent Serial Killer does, go from seemingly being absolutely obsessed with making the papers and threatened many times there would be consequences if they did not publish his letters, to a killer who then decides that he doesn’t want to tell them anymore and the serial killer simply vanishes as quickly as he appeared on Dec 20, 1968.

The bragging for Berryessa can be found on the car door, plus in the October 1969 letter where he says that he is the same man who attacked those people in the North Bay Area. As for why he did not claim Lake Herman right away, perhaps it did not immediately occur to him at the time that he could hold the populace hostage by writing taunting letters. Or maybe (this one’s for you, morf) he thought he needed to lie low for a bit and let the heat fade away before striking again.

Zodiac sudden disappearance from the public eye can be put down to something happening in his life that made him change. Look at BTK, another serial killer who saw the need to brag, then fell silent – Rader’s reason was his family life getting in the way. Zodiac could have found religion, psychological help, friends, who knows. I very much doubt something like death or disability cut his homicidal career short. He stopped killing long before he stopped writing.

Instead of this line of reasoning, it may be more profitable to look at the things that Z did that make him unique in his behavior. The first one is the need for massive public attention. Few people have such an insatiable need to brag about themselves and their accomplishments. The second is the use, in all of the letters signed by a crossed circle or as "Zodiac," of Monarch sized paper. While Monarch sized paper is not unique, it is certainly unusual. How many of us who are interested in the case had never even heard of it until we read RG’s book? Many, maybe most. I certainly hadn’t. (But I am not saying "none" of us had ever heard of it because obviously some people here had probably heard of it before. I’d guess it is the minority, though.) The other is autographing the car at Berryessa. Not many people write things on cars.

These are some of the behaviors that separate Z from the "normal" or "average" person.

Mike

… The other is autographing the car at Berryessa. Not many people write things on cars.

I wish he would have done that more than once.

… The other is autographing the car at Berryessa. Not many people write things on cars.

I wish he would have done that more than once.

But without the stabbing, or any other killy business.