I read something yesterday that I hadn’t really noticed about Zodiac that, after reading it, found it to be something very strange and significant, but not about ‘Zodiac’, but the man behind the smoke screen who used Zodiac as one of his personas.
Untill yesterday, I had been putting off going back to reading the two chapter’s of Kellehers & Van Nuys ‘This is the Zodiac Speaking’ (If I am enthrawled i a book and enjoy reading it, then I try and put off finishing it. Idiotic and counter intuative I know). Anyway, here’s what Van Nuys pointed out that I found captivating was the following..
The author of the letters claimed adopted the moniker ‘Zodiac’ in mid 1969, and used it all the way through his murderous rampage, even continuing to do so on occasion post 1970. Van Nuys point out that only when the author is writing as ‘Zodiac’ does he consistantly make basic spelling & grammar errors. The writer appears to also only seems to be menacing & threatning when he writes as ‘Zodiac’. Then, in 1974, after a three year hiatus, he writes four letters in 7 months (Jan – July of 74). The first is the ‘exorcist letter’. Zodiac writes this letter without his customary opening tagline ‘This is the Zodiac Speaking’, nor does he end it by identifying himself with either te cross hair symbol, or the more formal ‘Zodiac’, but elements of his sinister nature are clearly present. Then, in the following three letters of 1974, he seems to be a far different personality than the one people had become accustomed to.
Feb 14, he opens with a rather polite ‘Dr Mr Editor’ before asking one question; "Did you know that the initials SLAY (Symbionese Liberation Army) spell "sla," an old Norse word meaning kill." He then signs it, ‘A Friend’.
May 8, this time he even seems respectful in his addressing of the Editor. He wries: Sirs — I would like to express my consternt consternation concerning your poor taste + lack of sympathy for the public, as evidenced by your running of the ads for the movie "Badlands," featuring the blurb: "In 1959 most people were killing time. Kit + Holly were killing people." In light of recent events, this kind of murder-glorification can only be deplorable at best (not that glorification of violence was ever justifiable) why don’t you show some concern for public sensibilities + cut the ad?" This time, he signs of with ‘A Citizen’.
July 8, final letter of 1974 reads "Editor– Put Marco back in the, hell-hole from whence it came — he has a serious psychological disorder — always needs to feel superior. I suggest you refer him to a shrink. Meanwhile, cancel the Count Marco column." He ends by saying "Since the Count can write anonymously, so can I — The Red Phantom – (red with rage)."
As Van Nuys point out, the ‘Zodiac’ identity seems to have gone, along with the personality. Van Nuys points out several things about these letters that are very interesting.
1. After a three year silence, he resumes his communication with the press in Jan of 74, but his evil alter ego ‘Zodiac’ has vanished.
2. There are also no signs of the consistant spelling and grammar mistakes.
3. He doesn’t demand anything be published, threaten any harm, and the taunting braggat is nowhere in sight.
Van Nuys suggests that it’s possible that the three year hiatus (1971 – 74) could be explained as the man being committed to a psychiatric hospital due to his seemingly to be far more social and normal in these latest letters. Van Nuys suspects that the man was taking medication for his problems and at this time, in his opinion, ‘It’s working’.
I instantly, and prematurely, jumped to the conclusion that because the author could spell perfectly when he wrote as someone other than ‘Zodaic’, and the spelling and grammar only seemed to become fairly bad when ‘Zodiac’ took over the pen that this obviously settles the argument of ‘Intentional vs unintentional spelling mistake’, and that it was obviously deliberate. However,reading on, Van Nuys stated the he saw this as evidence that the spelling errors were not deliberate. Dr Van Nuys recognised these characteristics and symptoms as being associated with A Dissociative Disorder. There are Five Known Dissociative Disorders and when reading the symptoms associated with this disorder, I now question whether his spelling errors were deliberate or not. Of the five disorders, here are three of which Zodiac may have suffered with brief description of symptoms.
Depersonalization disorder: periods of detachment from self or surrounding which may be experienced as "unreal" (lacking in control of or "outside of" self) while retaining awareness that this is only a feeling and not a reality.
Dissociative fugue (formerly psychogenic fugue): reversible amnesia for personal identity, usually involving unplanned travel or wandering, sometimes accompanied by the establishment of a new identity. This state is typically associated with stressful life circumstances and can be short or lengthy.
Dissociative identity disorder (formerly multiple personality disorder): the alternation of two or more distinct personality states with impaired recall among personality states. In extreme cases, the host personality is unaware of the other, alternating personalities; however, the alternate personalities are aware of all the existing personalities.
The final letter from Zodiac (albeit controversial as to it’s authenticity) came in 1978, four years after the last and seems to see the return of the evil alter ego with the opening trademark;
"Dear Editor This is the Zodiac speaking". The letter went on "I am back with you. Tell herb caen I am here, I have always been here. That city pig toschi is good ‘ but I am smarter and better he will get tired then leave me alone.I am waiting for a good movie about me. who will play me. I am now in control of all things. Yours truly: (Zodiac Symbol/cross hairs)."
This letter, if authentic, is one of the more iteresting because of the clear conclusions it allows the reader to draw. The first one being that the ‘Zodiac’ persona/alter ego has returned. "I am back wit you. Tell herb caen I am here, I have always been here". He states ‘I am back with you’ before instatly telling the readers he’s always been here with them and never gone anywhere. It does seem as thought he implies that the Zodiac personality is back with us, and that the Zodiac personality has always been there within the man himself, ‘He’ has just simply been repressed and controled and kept dormant, possibly by anti-pyschotic drugs for example.
Anyway, I know this post is now pretty lenghty, but it’s something I found very interesting to consider.
"So it’s sorta social. Demented and sad, but social, right?" Judd Nelson.
WC – I’m in England. Some detective you are eh? 
Big problem here. The same problem I was writing about on the other thread you started about the Zodiac Killer "not following the rules" of "normal" serial killers. Sort of.
Problem here? Some of those letters are from different individuals. SLA? Marco? P-lease!
If we’re going to try armchair psychoanalysis from bad letters, why not also use the ridiculous 1978 thing? Because it doesn’t fit the prognosis?
"I’m now in control of all things".
Ah – he’s power assertive, not dis-associative. Or he’s stopped taking the tablets.
Next patient!
Trying to determine someone’s basic mental state face-to-face is difficult. Trying to do so from reading materials is even more difficult, Trying to do so when you have letters which have been written by other indiviuals in the mix? Not possible.
Van Nuys may be an excellent psychologist (who knows. I don’t think he is – no matter) but I think we can be reasonably sure that he’s no document examiner.
I would ask Trav which of those letters are from "The Zodiac" then try the psychoanalysis again, perhaps.
The ’78 letter isn’t Zodiac. As for the other’s I couldn’t say for sure but if your delving for personalities then just leave out the contentious ones and see what it gives you. If you were to buy into a personality disorder theory then it still works for the ’78 letter as you can say that couldn’t be Zodiac as that personae had probably been retired.
I’ve had some thoughts about this and from my complete lack of understanding of the subject I’ve mused on ways this might have shown in what we know of Z’s actions. That’s all it was though because, firstly I don’t know so it’s just idle musing and secondly, because of that, I wouldn’t know if I was just reading these things into stuff to satisfy a hypothetical diagnosis.
Whilst it’s certainly an aspect of the case that must and has been explored I can’t help hearing Avery’s words in TFM to Graysmith warning "You can’t look at this case in normal police terms". I think the word police can be swapped for many others such as ‘handwriting’, ‘psychoanalysis’ etc.
Z actions seem pretty diversionary. This idea of personality switching to explain gaps, whilst interesting, doesn’t really tally comfortably with what we see him write. Take the Belli letter, it’s sometimes cited as proof of this but yet he starts with ‘This is the Zodiac speaking’ so does that mean that his Zodiac personality has a split personality or is it simpler to think he was taking the p…! I’d plump for option two as it’s something that runs through his communications.
Information, diversion, information etc. IF you dropped the contentious letters then the ‘Zodiac’ personality is preserved to the end which would be the Exorcist letter. No intro or crosshair but it’s written by him on his own behalf and that is Zodiac. It initially signs off ‘yours Truley : ‘then the mikado reference and then further qualifies the author with a threat and a score. He may not have introduced himself and signed off in the usual manner but it’s pretty clear that it’s Zodiac writing it and not someone who used to be Zodiac. It’s yours truley colon then the reference and I think that’s all it is. Just a ‘clew’, – "Hey it’s me, I like the Mikado, remember?". If you were to read anything into the content beyond that it doesn’t seem to fit in the context of the letter anyway.
Starts with a tongue in cheek review of the Exorcist,
identifies self as the same self he’s always been (yours Truley),
implies suicide of self or personae then uses the same self as warning of future retribution if request is ignored,
gives an elevated score, real or not it’s a chronological continuation of the SAME self.
Despite being fake the ’78 did get one thing right IMHO – He has always been here – Just him, just Zodiac.
“I don’t know Chief, he’s very smart or very dumb.“
To my knowledge (reading his input in the book), Dr. Van Nuys’ reasoning for suspecting a Dissociative Disorder revolved around the 1974 letters with wildly different handwriting and styles. That conclusion, of course, depends mostly on the 1974 letters like the Citizen letter and Red Phantom letter being legitimate and, like smithy, I have real questions about both despite the apparent handwriting confirmations. If these are legit., I think a Dissociative Disorder, particularly Dissociative Identity Disorder, is a real possibility.
http://www.somer.co.il/articles/1997Han … .Disoc.pdf
The diagnosis is controversial but I’ve seen real cases of people whose handwriting, voice, physical presentation etc. can be completely different while dissociating. Full disclosure: my personal POI had real or self-created "multiple personalities" so perhaps I’m not the most objective on the subject but I won’t accept the letters at face value just because I like the conclusion. Sure wish Z had been more helpful in authenticating all of these uncertain early (CJB-related) and later letters…
Trav – nice one – E., well fair enough, and I echo your sentiments. A mechanism like this one would have helped, wouldn’t it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lindb … nature.png
Perhaps that’s what was intended, in any case. (Derivative sometimes, wasn’t he).
The clincher, of course, is "What good does a ‘diagnosis’ do us?"
I don’t think it’s at all useful. Wasn’t at the time, isn’t now.
I wonder why Van Nuys bothered, then? What do you guys think? Did he think he could add something to the large volume of "diagnosis" already undertaken? Did he think that what he added would be new and original enough to assist the process of trying to find "The Zodiac"?
Hmmmmm……
Trav – nice one – E., well fair enough, and I echo your sentiments. A mechanism like this one would have helped, wouldn’t it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lindb … nature.png
Perhaps that’s what was intended, in any case. (Derivative sometimes, wasn’t he).The clincher, of course, is "What good does a ‘diagnosis’ do us?"
I don’t think it’s at all useful. Wasn’t at the time, isn’t now.
I wonder why Van Nuys bothered, then? What do you guys think? Did he think he could add something to the large volume of "diagnosis" already undertaken? Did he think that what he added would be new and original enough to assist the process of trying to find "The Zodiac"?
Hmmmmm……
Yeah, smithy. All notorious criminals should be required to provide a personal signature and use it consistently on all of their communications. 
My guess is that Dr. Van Nuys was simply offering this as a possible explanation for the seemingly inexplicable disparity in the tone and handwriting of the letters he was analyzing. That and filling pages in a book. He doesn’t claim to be an expert on the case- he was merely asked to analyze the letters in the sequence they were sent. Right or wrong conclusions, I think this was a really interesting, novel approach.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to look at letters authenticated by Morrill even if that authentication might be wrong. I suppose if you have the RIGHT diagnosis it could help narrow down the potential pool of suspects or at least could be something to consider in looking at the histories of potential suspects. POI preferences aside, a correct diagnosis of Dissociative Identity Disorder (comparitively rare) would serve to really narrow down the suspect pool, no?
I’d be interested to know how Morrill apparently authenticated the Red Phantom (Count Marco) letter. It is NOTHING like Zodiac’s scrawl yet something was somehow given the thumbs up by Morrill. Then again, so was the stupid desk poem, which doesn’t give me much faith in the handwriting analysis. 
Yeah, smithy. All notorious criminals should be required to provide a personal signature and use it consistently on all of their communications.
Let’s make it a rule!
My guess is that Dr. Van Nuys was simply offering this as a possible explanation for the seemingly inexplicable disparity in the tone and handwriting of the letters he was analyzing. That and filling pages in a book. He doesn’t claim to be an expert on the case- he was merely asked to analyze the letters in the sequence they were sent. Right or wrong conclusions, I think this was a really interesting, novel approach.
Maybe I’ve been too hard on the good Doctor hmm? I didn’t realise he was asked to lend expertise – I thought he was trying to grab his few minnutes of fame and (between ourselves) slightly undermining the integrity of the profession with second-hand diagnoses, in the process. I might be wrong.
My problem overall is that it is also a "modern" diagnosis, in any case, and so no, it doesn’t narrow the suspect pool at all!
FInd me a 1969 diagnosis of same – anywhere – or some way to make a decent comparison to medical records of the time, and I’ll admit I might be wrong about that too!
I’d be interested to know how Morrill apparently authenticated the Red Phantom (Count Marco) letter. It is NOTHING like Zodiac’s scrawl yet something was somehow given the thumbs up by Morrill. Then again, so was the stupid desk poem, which doesn’t give me much faith in the handwriting analysis.
Agreed, agreed.
Trav’s look at the desk poem – particularly at the baselines of the words ending "ing" give me some confidence in it, but it’s fits nothing. At all.
Mind you, if we all clubbed together and paid our own QDE there would still be disagreements!
Which one decided the book wasn’t up to par..so-to-speak. Kelleher?
“…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
FInd me a 1969 diagnosis of same – anywhere – or some way to make a decent comparison to medical records of the time, and I’ll admit I might be wrong about that too!
That’s a good question, smithy, and one I had to look up.
http://www.fortea.us/english/psiquiatria/history.htm
The official diagnosis of Multiple Personality Disorder (now Dissociative Identity Disorder) apparently wasn’t legitimized until 1980 with the inclusion in the DSM III (the official Bible of abnormal psychology) but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence of the disorder for centuries before then. I agree that it is controversial and a "modern disease" to some extent. Kind of like ADHD in kids today, it’s diagnosed far more often today albeit still pretty rare and probably is way over-diagnosed. So… the diagnosis didn’t exist in 1969 but the disorder certainly did, IMHO. If Z happened to suffer from it, there would be no record of him having that diagnosis.
Tahoe, I know Mike K. (to his credit) has acknowledged that a lot of the conclusions drawn in his book would need to be amended based on new information. I don’t agree with all of his conclusions but I still think it’s a really insightful, objective effort and a great read. I believe Mike has said that he agrees with the possible conclusion of a Dissociative Disorder but not Dissociative Identity Disorder.
Tahoe, I know Mike K. (to his credit) has acknowledged that a lot of the conclusions drawn in his book would need to be amended based on new information. I don’t agree with all of his conclusions but I still think it’s a really insightful, objective effort and a great read. I believe Mike has said that he agrees with the possible conclusion of a Dissociative Disorder but not Dissociative Identity Disorder.
I enjoyed the book too. While I didn’t always agree, it was interesting to view different perspectives. I also like the way each portion of the letters was dissected.
“…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
I know Mike too and although I haven’t discussed the book with him as such I feel it was a very worthwhile enterprise. A very enjoyable read and even though it might not nail everything it was done in such a way that it was presented as an honest attempt to poke at the mystery.
My understanding is that Dr Van Nuys was asked to look at the letters prior to his knowledge of the identity of the author as the Zodiac. Now obviously you don’t have to wait too long before that it is revealed in the letters but even in the bigger picture I think that Dr V was somewhat removed from the whole complicated story that we know. So as far as I know it was the best working conditions that could be managed to provide an objective look at the letters by a professional in the field.
That’s what I like about the book actually is that it carries a feel that allows you to speculate and consider the opinions offered – as opposed to being bullied into them. I know Mike has intimated that he got some things wrong in the book but I don’t know if those things were anything more than details or specifics. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the overall premise.
In many ways it allows us have threads like this because unlike the black and white statements of LE reports we have had the pleasure of Mike’s company to further explain and be questioned on what was written.
I’m really just echoing Entropy’s statement but I wanted to make it clear that I don’t question DR V’s findings but I do love that we are able to, if we want to, because of how "This is the Zodiac Speaking" was conceived and planned. I don’t know have a strong enough opinion as to whether disorders were in play with Zodiac but I liked that the fallibility of the book didn’t make me feel like I had to.
“I don’t know Chief, he’s very smart or very dumb.“
Here’s a quick rundown of this disorder:
Dissociation is the state in which a person becomes separated from reality. Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), sometimes referred to as Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD), is a disorder involving a disturbance of identity in which two or more separate and distinct personality states (or identities) control the individual’s behavior at different times. When under the control of one identity, the person is usually unable to remember some of the events that occurred while other personality was in control. The different identities are referred to as “alters”. (www.nami.com)
Alters may have experienced a distinct personal history, self image and identity, including a separate name, as well as age. At least two of these personalities recurrently take control of the person’s behavior.
One of the symptoms used in the Diagnosis of MPD is listed as…
Handwriting Differences_ In diagnosing MPD another indicator is the difference in handwriting styles.
I’ve always found it fascinating that each ‘Personality’ doesn’t just have a mental presence, so to speak, but also a physical one. Handwriting differences. The SFPD said at one time that they were using the handwriting from the letters as their main evidence to rule out suspects. Many made a big thing about ALA possibly being abmidextrous, but nobody ever questioned if MPD could be responsible for never matching any suspects handriting to the writing of the ‘Zodiac’.
I’m not suggesting for one moment that I am qualified to speak about this, nor am I, by writing this, stating that I am ‘for’ the notion of a Split Personality Zodiac. I just think it’s something to consider.
"So it’s sorta social. Demented and sad, but social, right?" Judd Nelson.
I think I mentioned elsewhere that I actually worked briefly on a Women’s Inpatient Psychiatric Unit that drew many women diagnosed with Multiple Personality Disorder (as it was known at the time) because it was run by one of the most well-known psychiatrists specializing in MPD (he’s mentioned in the handwriting article I posted). I also did admission interviews for the hospital so I encountered many women (and a few men…) with the diagnosis. It’s really stunning to watch someone switch alters, which can entail different speech, appearance, dress, clothing and yes, handwriting. I would probably doubt the existence of it as well without this personal experience.
These folks almost invariably have an extensive history of childhood sexual abuse. I’ve come to believe that the diagnosis is very real but may be an extreme form of Borderline Personality Disorder, which involves a lot of identity disturbance as well.
http://psychcentral.com/lib/2007/sympto … -disorder/
Again, I think any suspicion of this in Zodiac would be the radical changes in handwriting, particular the 1974 letters, which may be a total red herring.
While we’re on the topic, here’s an interesting analysis of Zodiac’s psychological make-up. It’s kinda technical and based on one knowledgeable person’s vision of Zodiac but I think it’s somewhat interesting for discussion:
Thanks for the links entropy. 
I believe people do suffer with MP’s…I just doubt Zodiac did.
“…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
If anything, I’d say Zodiac was bipolar. I feel that the letter to Melvin Belli was written during one of his ‘lows’, during which he was seriously considering the possibility of the cops showing up at his front door and him being taken into custody. And I agree with Dr. Van Nuys’ conclusion that the change of tone Zodiac’s letters underwent in 1974 signify a change in his mental state, possibly secondary to treatment.
