Why so many methods of killing?


Zodiackiller.com Message Board: General Zodiac Discussion: Why so many methods of killing?

By Matt (usr35-tel.cableinet.co.uk - 213.48.178.42) on Wednesday, September 20, 2000 - 06:10 pm:

Sorry if I am treading on any toes, my lack of knowledge of this subject is clear to me, But... it seems to me that Zodiac used more methods than a serial killer normally uses.

There have been poisoners, those who used gas, knives, guns, etc.

But from my limited knowledge it is not common that serial killers will use more than one method of killing.

Guns and knives? And the threat of a bomb?

Why two different methods and a proposed third?

Could there be any significance in this?

By Oscar (dialup-209.245.67.136.losangeles1.level3.net - 209.245.67.136) on Wednesday, September 27, 2000 - 11:55 pm:

Matt/So many methods

Why would the Zodiac use so many different instruments of murder?
The most logical explanation that comes to my ripe head is that Zodiac wanted to confuse the police as much as possible. Now, this may seem like a contradiction- after all, this sicko enjoyed taunting the police, and was certainly not shy about his activities-but it does make the investigation more involved and difficult. Police do not have the luxury (sorry, macabre diction)of simply finding one murder weapon that can conclusively wrap up a case. Of course, it helps if you have a viable subject to begin with!
Another factor may be within the realm of psychology, and in particular, criminal pathology. It is said that serial murderers usually undergo what is referred to as "decompensation". As I understand it,this refers to an escalationn of violence while, at the same time, the basic identity that the killer has constructed begins to erode or evolve. The upshot is that the killer begins to get "sloppy", often leaving behind clues he/she would not normally have.
Zodiac may have felt that he could no longer "get off" by murdering people with guns. A firearm tends to remove one from the victim by virtue of distance. Even if you are firing at someone from a foot away, you are still somewhat removed from the target. You are launching a projectile; there is no tactile gratification.The Berryessa attack was notably different in that it involved penetration of the victims by knife. Also, the frenzy of the attack on Shepherd would, perhaps, indicate a rather amateuristic/voyeuristic use of a knife. Zodiac was enjoying the sensation of the blade going into the victim's bodies in much the same way that a child is fascinated when he/she lights their first match.
Why then did the Zodiac revert back to the use of a firearm to kill Stine? My thought is that Zodiac, as caught up as he was in the sensation of the Berryessa attack, was able to pull back from the decompensation process. During the Berryessa attack he donned the bizarre outfit and engaged in verbal interplay with his victims, all of which implies a killer who is solidifying his unique fantasy identity. Tom used an interesting term on the TLC show: he called it "becoming".However, during the aftermath of the attack, Zodiac may have realized that he had gone "too far". He realized that he had taken too many risks. If you recall, the very first murders were committed by an individual who took the risks AFTER the crimes had been committed.
Stine is killed with a handgun while sitting in his cab. Zodiac is still taking a great risk because of the location of the crime, but he is also making sure that he has a good chance of escape. He didn't plan on a chance encounter with the two SFPD officers. In fact, this probably scared the hell out of him, as Zodiac was by nature a coward. The end result is that Zodiac became too scared to continue the killings...but not so unnerved as to stop writing letters. The process of decompensation was halted by circumstance. According to serial murder research, it is unlikely, but not unknown for a killer to reverse this process.
I know that I digressed- too much job stress and way too much caffeine- but I hope this was, at the very least, food for thought.

By Tobi9 (squid1w.kdt.de - 195.8.224.38) on Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 09:18 am:

-----I know that I digressed- too much job stress and way too much caffeine- but I hope this was, at the very least, food for thought.-----

Oscar, we all have the same problems, nothing you should be ashamed of.

Well, In fact I have just one question:
How is your psychological explanation about... Zodiac = coward by nature ?

Thank you in advance
Tobi9

By Ed N. (spider-wn062.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.197.177) on Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 10:02 am:

Z = coward because:

1) He ambushed Faraday and Jensen;

2) He ambushed Ferrin and Mageau;

3) He tied up Hartnell and Shepard, then stabbed them;

4) He ambushed Stine.

Any questions?

By Glen (dialup-209.245.232.104.dallas1.level3.net - 209.245.232.104) on Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 05:48 pm:

Serial Killer Psychology 101 is not my topic for sure, but I have more of a question than an observation. Is it cowardice if the victims are not viewed as people in the mind of the killer?

Animals are hunted with guns and no hunter calls this cowardice. I've never heard anybody chided for not walking up to a deer and beating it to death with his bare hands, for instance. The concepts of cowardice versus fair play do not enter into the sport of hunting.

So what if the killer is a sociopath or otherwise deluded to the point that he does not consider his victims as human, but mere prey? He certainly seemed to reduce them to subordinate positions. "The most dangerous animal", "more fun that getting your rocks off with a girl", etc. We certainly consider his actions cowardly, but we also would not commit these acts ourselves, so it's possible we are not putting ourselves in a mindset that might allow us insight into the killer when analyzing his actions. I just wonder if concepts such as shame, fair play, cowardice, had any meaning to this man.

By Oscar (dialup-209.245.79.32.losangeles1.level3.net - 209.245.79.32) on Friday, September 29, 2000 - 12:41 am:

"Is it cowardice if the victims are not viewed as people in the mind of the killer."
Glen,
This is a very perceptive remark on your part, but if Zodiac did not view the victims as human, he most likely would have been caught. Why? If you are hunting for slaves for the afterlife etc., it becomes evident that your pathology is quite advanced. However, can we take Z at his word? His threats, as far as we know, never bore fruit: no school bus bombs, no action taken after the people of S.F. didn't wear Z buttons etc.If one believes that killing a human is no big deal; that, in fact, killing is "fun", then it makes sense that one would not have any grasp of the consequences of one's actions. People who can not grasp this do not plan to the extent that Z did.
Z was, arguably, an organized killer, rather than a disorganized one. Organized killers tend to be methodical and precise, because they are aware of the consequences of their deeds- they may have sociopathic tendencies but, by definition, they are not sociopaths. I speculate that Z knew exactly what he was doing, realized his targets were human, and as a result of this awareness was able to elude authorities through capable planning and poor policing.
While Z was an organized killer, to a certain degree, he was certainly no criminal genius. That part of the Zodiac story is pure, and very potent myth...media-fueled myth, that is.

By Oscar (dialup-209.245.79.32.losangeles1.level3.net - 209.245.79.32) on Friday, September 29, 2000 - 01:01 am:

Tobi9,
Thanks for the nod. I believe that Ed basically answered your question (thanks,Ed!). One could argue that any serial killer is a coward, but Z- or any "blitz"-type killer- is even more so. The victims are never given a chance, the killer keeps his distance (relatively speaking), and the method of killing usually involves a firearm. Also, notice that the only evidence that Z was able to get 'up close and personal'was at Berryessa, and when he shot Stine. I have doubts that Berryessa was a Z crime, and the killing of Stine, while committed in a populated area, was cowardly in that Z was not facing his victim. This inability to face the victim says an awful lot about Z. Also, if the accounts of the first two killings (excluding the problematic Bates murder)are to be believed, Z never directly faced his victims, but approached them at an angle. Once again, this indicates that Z was cowardly.

By Ed N. (spider-wc082.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.193.57) on Friday, September 29, 2000 - 01:06 am:

Diana wrote:

But as I said some minutes ago, Tom and Glen and EdN and Jake should listen to some music.
Use the program Napster or Gozilla and download you a special track from artist Pitchshifter.
Songname: Hidden Agenda


Who is "Pitchshifter," what is "Hidden Agenda" about, and why should any of us listen to it?

By Oscar (dialup-63.209.84.130.losangeles1.level3.net - 63.209.84.130) on Friday, September 29, 2000 - 02:36 am:

Diana of "Pitchshifter" fame etc.,
I have the shovel you need to dig your head out of the sand. What in the HELL are you raving about?! Your synapse-frying mindfarts are giving me the feeling that I am not privy to some esoteric, but vital Zodiac info...and it's freakin' me out!Be gentle to us 'newbies', or, and this might be a novel suggestion, BE A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC!
Sorry, but I am, much to my chagrin, a charm school dropout. Your raving has left me nostalgic for the nights I would load up on LSD and shriek like a banshee.

By Frank D. (squid1w.kdt.de - 195.8.224.38) on Friday, September 29, 2000 - 03:47 am:

Oscar,
Our main problem is that Tom, EdN, Jake, and our special guest Glen are not really interested in the Zodiac case. You can see that by their mental attitude when they post. Especially those "long nose's" are responsible that many people left the board, because they were burned down till basmement by "cunning" and, more worst, hurting answeres of the MTV-Network. Don't you agree ?

We believe that (possibly) the last chance to find something out would be to post ALL the material on Internet. Possibly you will disagree, but can't you see how important it is to supplie the free Internet with case relevant informations.
I'm sure nothing will move if Tom keep Miss Bates diary in his pocket.

P.S.
No esoteric, no LSD, nokind of sect, no criminals, and no Zodiac here.

By d N. (spider-wc022.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.193.27) on Friday, September 29, 2000 - 09:50 am:

Not interested in the case??? Responsible for many people leaving??? If you're talking about Carl, you therefore have no clue what you're talking about.

And I am now beginning to understand how and why Tom gets tired of some of those who post and e-mail him, who are just looking for a free lunch! There ain't no such thing!

By Jake (Jake) (spider-wc033.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.193.33) on Friday, September 29, 2000 - 12:30 pm:

Frank D. Wrote:
"Our main problem is that Tom, EdN, Jake, and our special guest Glen are not really interested in the Zodiac case. You can see that by their mental attitude when they post. Especially those "long nose's" are responsible that many people left the board, because they were burned down till basmement by "cunning" and, more worst, hurting answeres of the MTV-Network. Don't you agree ?"

Our main problem is that there are so many people who don't bother to back up their outrageous claims with any kind of source. Could you provide us with one single example of disinterest on my part? How about a cunning, hurtful answer? Or how about you just get lost?

--Jake
http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/index.html
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."

By Anonymous (dialup-63.210.121.174.losangeles1.level3.net - 63.210.121.174) on Friday, September 29, 2000 - 12:48 pm:

I have been monitoring this board for quite some time. Having established my fine pedigree, I must state that I have come to one solid, irrefutable conclusion regarding those who 'spank the plank' on the Zodiac case: GLEN IS A POMPOUS, OVERBEARING, MENTAL JACOBIN WHO ENJOYS SNIPING AT PEOPLE WITH HIS OH-SO-CLEVER EJACULATIONS!! Glen, do us a favor and sell your Sears catalogue approach to the case somewhere else, or, failing that, TRY TO BE NICE! I know that you probably received your Ph.D in Criminology from Pierce College, but take your professorial snobbery down a notch or seven. Even better, find a home at a "Green River" site-they need all the help they can get("All bottom-feeders welcome!")! Nuff said.

By Oscar (dialup-63.210.121.174.losangeles1.level3.net - 63.210.121.174) on Friday, September 29, 2000 - 12:50 pm:

Dear Jake,
Re: Frank D's diatribe
Amen, brother!

By Glen (dialup-209.245.226.215.dallas1.level3.net - 209.245.226.215) on Friday, September 29, 2000 - 02:15 pm:

GLEN IS A POMPOUS, OVERBEARING, MENTAL JACOBIN WHO ENJOYS SNIPING AT PEOPLE WITH HIS OH-SO-CLEVER EJACULATIONS!!

I am sooo flattered! That's about the kindest thing any anonymous no one has ever said to me! I'm gonna pin this one on the wall, anonymous.

Frank D. states I'm not really interested in the Zodiac case, and I'm guilty of the charge on certain levels. I've stated that the ciphers are my primary interest, and I would be more interested in other aspects of the case if the information were there, but it's not. I've offered my help to anyone trying to crack the cipher, and so far I don't think I've given anyone a negative response. Sometimes a factual response may sound negative, but if it saves someone time and trouble, it should be a positive experience. I've actually learned a few things since I started signing on here, and I find my experiences here very rewarding on a personal level. Just look at all the nice reviews I get!

It's true that Tom, Ed N. and Jake haven't spent all their time monitoring the board and formulating opinions about the board personalities. They have been out doing the difficult groundwork it takes to gain insight into difficult cases such as this one. 99 out of 100 leads are deadend leads, so they diligently plod through each one and record their findings. When one ends, they're off following the next one. You on the otherhand expect to simply sit back and reap the benefits of their hard labors, and when things don't go your way or move fast enough, you barf all over everybody. I wish my interests were as simpleminded as those that give you pleasure.

Well, anonymous, you can feel secure in your position. Here you don't have to give your name or your e-mail address, and no censor thug is going to keep you from monitoring comments from a "mental Jacobin" like me to your heart's content. So sit back and enjoy the show, and when it gets too boring for you, simply change the channel and harass someone else. Man, that's the life. I'm doing it all wrong, guys!

By Jake (Jake) (spider-tr042.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.201.192) on Friday, September 29, 2000 - 03:01 pm:

Matt wrote:
"But from my limited knowledge it is not common that serial killers will use more than one method of killing.

Guns and knives? And the threat of a bomb?

Why two different methods and a proposed third?"

I think Z started out using a gun because it was a relatively clean way to kill people. It allowed him to remain detached from them, to drive up, blast them, and drive away quickly. He moved on to the knife as his bloodlust escalated: at Lake Berryessa, he wasn't just killing for his own reasons, he was inflicting terror and domination on his victims. To use an analogy that's probably inappropriate, it was like the escalation from masturbation to sex -- he wanted to get someone else involved, to see their reaction to his power. (Apologies if anyone finds this too vulgar.) One theorist has even suggested that, if Z hadn't been so nearly busted after the SF attack, he would have gone on to commit more Berryessa-style attacks.

As to the bomb threats, I think these were intended solely to gain attention from the media. Z's bomb diagrams depict devices that would never work in real-world circumstances. I don't think he ever built one or intended to.

--Jake
http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/index.html
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."

By Glen (dialup-209.246.132.193.dallas1.level3.net - 209.246.132.193) on Friday, September 29, 2000 - 04:30 pm:

Oscar wrote:
"Is it cowardice if the victims are not viewed as people in the mind of the killer."
Glen,
This is a very perceptive remark on your part, but if Zodiac did not view the victims as human, he most likely would have been caught. Why? If you are hunting for slaves for the afterlife etc., it becomes evident that your pathology is quite advanced. ............. If one believes that killing a human is no big deal; that, in fact, killing is "fun", then it makes sense that one would not have any grasp of the consequences of one's actions. People who can not grasp this do not plan to the extent that Z did.


definition - Pathology - A departure or deviation from a normal condition.

Oscar, the question then becomes “what is considered normal?” This opens up a can of worms I could probably do without, but here goes anyway. Just don’t dump a lot of religious arguments my way because I only observe the absurd, I do not participate in it.

Those in our culture who profess a belief in Christ and his teachings are routinely anti-abortion and pro death penalty. One is considered murder, the other justice. There’s no evidence in Christ’s teachings whatsoever that should give “followers of Christ” this belief, but here it is. They had to ignore a lot of information to develop this as a workable solution, even to the point of ignoring the fact that killing the first born if it was a female was a common practice in Jesus’ time, and he never made mention of its inequity. They have to ignore the “Judge not lest ye be judged” concept and many others ad nausaeum to come up with this standard. So the number one sin “Thou shalt not kill” still can’t be nailed down even by long established religions. They are the first place a tumultuous conscience looks, and the last place a troubled mind can find refuge.

Christianity, our most established religion, second only to the Muslim religion in numbers of believers, finds many instances where the taking of life is appropriate, even when the teachings state differently. Historically the Christian pulpit preached against the blacks, the Chinese immigrants, the newly arrived Irish immigrants, and against anything that would affect the “status quo”. A really good look would reveal that nothing has changed in so many hundred years.

The point I would make from this is that the act of killing is something that humans cannot remove themselves from, no matter what their belief structure, and so it becomes necessary to examine the situations under certain belief structures where this act is allowable or not condoned.

My observation was probably mis-stated, but what I saw was a belief structure that dealt with human souls, much like our Christian beliefs. In Christianity it was acceptable to kill the body to save the soul, and should that person admit demonic activity in the course of such torture, he would lose his real property as well. A payoff system established by our forefathers – in the interest of true justice. The flip side here is someone taking the soul of a youthful and exuberant person to further his position in the afterlife. Who’s more religiously motivated, the Christian or the killer? I was simply trying to point out that there are varied circumstances that allow the religiously inclined to do things that “depart or deviate from the norm” without fear of reprisal or religious condemnation.

Z was, arguably, an organized killer, rather than a disorganized one. Organized killers tend to be methodical and precise, because they are aware of the consequences of their deeds- they may have sociopathic tendencies but, by definition, they are not sociopaths. I speculate that Z knew exactly what he was doing, realized his targets were human, and as a result of this awareness was able to elude authorities through capable planning and poor policing.

Again, religious indoctrination tends to set up a “Them and Us” system. It is disrespectful and punishable to shoot your lieutenant in the heat of battle, but it’s okay to kill all the enemy you can. Z clearly set up the “Them and Us” scenario. His organization is in question however. If he had the methodical and precise nature of someone such as myself, he would never have left a scene with anyone alive. I would not have been that sloppy. Nor would I have “chosen his shots” as he did. His only recognizable organization in all but one of his killings was that he chose far and away spots so he had time to escape. This gives you some sense of what planning must have gone into the Stein killing. How many of you think he didn’t have a car waiting so all he had to do was drive off? How many of you believe he planned to leave on foot alone? I think his letter relating to this incident demonstrated his weakness.

While Z was an organized killer, to a certain degree, he was certainly no criminal genius. That part of the Zodiac story is pure, and very potent myth...media-fueled myth, that is.

On this we agree.

By Tom Voigt (spider-wa034.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.192.34) on Friday, September 29, 2000 - 04:46 pm:

A moron wrote,
"I'm sure nothing will move if Tom keep Miss Bates diary in his pocket."

I don't have Cheri Jo Bates' diary, and if I did I certainly wouldn't publish it. (Or any other highly-personal items.)

Why would you ever think you might be able to make something of the materials I haven't posted? This group of yours is a joke: you've accomplished absolutely nothing, despite your head start on people like me.

The information is out there. Because you don't have the ability to obtain it isn't my concern.
Certain items that I haven't published have been shared, but not with hacks like you.

By Glen (dialup-209.246.132.228.dallas1.level3.net - 209.246.132.228) on Friday, September 29, 2000 - 05:32 pm:

Let's see here. Tom's system probably gives more precise information, but what I get from the board is this -

Tobi9 - squid1w.kdt.de-195.8.224.38
Frank D. - squid1w.kdt.de-195.8.224.38
Jackie O. - squid1w.kdt.de-195.8.224.38

Do I have to go through other posts to find out who's who, are are you just going to stick to one name from now on? Trust me, you're not fooling anyone here.

By Glen (dialup-209.246.132.228.dallas1.level3.net - 209.246.132.228) on Friday, September 29, 2000 - 05:52 pm:

Oscar, I might also point out - in order to take full advantage of a dynamically assigned connection, you must sign off and sign on again so the number actually changes! Example -

By Anonymous (dialup-63.210.121.174.losangeles1.level3.net - 63.210.121.174) on Friday, September 29, 2000 - 12:48 pm:


I have been monitoring this board for quite some time. Having established my fine pedigree, I must state that I have come to one solid, irrefutable conclusion regarding those who 'spank the plank' on the Zodiac case: GLEN IS A POMPOUS, OVERBEARING, MENTAL JACOBIN WHO ENJOYS SNIPING AT PEOPLE WITH HIS OH-SO-CLEVER EJACULATIONS!! Glen, do us a favor and sell your Sears catalogue approach to the case somewhere else, or, failing that, TRY TO BE NICE! I know that you probably received your Ph.D in Criminology from Pierce College, but take your professorial snobbery down a notch or seven. Even better, find a home at a "Green River" site-they need all the help they can get("All bottom-feeders welcome!")! Nuff said.

By Oscar (dialup-63.210.121.174.losangeles1.level3.net - 63.210.121.174) on Friday, September 29, 2000 - 12:50 pm:


Dear Jake,
Re: Frank D's diatribe
Amen, brother!


Comments made within two minutes of each other, on the same minor interest board, and we must assume they are from two different individuals. Wrong! You never signed off, sucker, and it's this kind of mistake that usually convicts a wannabee like you. As I've always said, it's all in the numbers, baby. Sooner or later you fall by the numbers. That's what good research is all about. Try it, simpleton.

By Oscar-the Real (dialup-63.210.117.171.losangeles1.level3.net - 63.210.117.171) on Friday, September 29, 2000 - 07:29 pm:

To Glen,
Without saying more than I should, I will say that I am using a computer in a common area (college), and I am not the only one in my dorm that is interested in the case. I am guilty of turning other people onto the message board (three in particular), and if I led someone to attack you, then I must honestly plead ignorance. I am looking into it, and, yes, I do have a suspect. Anyway, I found the message quite funny, but, once again, I did not post this. I have the addresses of several people, as I'm sure you do. Your responses to me have been forthright and respectful, so I don't believe there is any reason for me to post a message like this. Also, I did not post the message about Carol O'Connor as a suspect. I do have a sense of humor, but I'm not that warped. I will also have to say that I did not post two of the other messages purported to be by me. If you think I'm full of s--t, then please e-mail me personally. I'm truly sorry if you were hurt. I am thankful for any responses I get, and my interest in the case is sincere. As for my "compatriots", I can make no claims. Sorry.

By Glen (dialup-209.245.231.245.dallas1.level3.net - 209.245.231.245) on Friday, September 29, 2000 - 08:00 pm:

Hurt? not in any sense. More offended by the obvious deception and what is apparently your choice of "compatriots", more directly meaning those who are accomplices in the common patriotic pursuit. If I were you I'd get my own connection and find some new friends. Meanwhile, let your "compatriots" know how flattered I am at the honorable mention.

BTW, if it helps in eliminating your three suspects, it was the one that wrote the message on the same "College" terminal that you used just two minutes after the fact. Each terminal has its own ID, or weren't your "compatriots" aware of this fact? You should have passed each other in the sitting, IMHO. Does that narrow it down for you?

By Oscar (dialup-209.245.67.34.losangeles1.level3.net - 209.245.67.34) on Friday, September 29, 2000 - 10:15 pm:

Duh? like i said common area- did I say anything else? Please! I have not been online since very, very early in the morning. As mentioned, I did not post everything that was attributed to me, and, unlike you, I did not really give much thought to the word "compatriot". The "Amen" to Jake was not mine either. I am prolific, but even I need to sleep. Check the times; think about it. I do not spend every waking moment in front of a computer.
After your last response I'm beginning to think that you are less than charitable. byt, hey, I'd probably be pissed as well. take my explanation or not, I really don't care. I've given you what I know, and I could be spending my time doing more valuable things.

By Anonymous (spider-tq042.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.201.62) on Friday, September 29, 2000 - 10:40 pm:

To who it may concern ,
Anonymous J is not the party responsible for the prior posts by anonymous person. I hope this clears up any confusion. It's getting old real fast using anonymous J , about time I officially change it ... thanks,
Anonymous J = Femexplorr1 (soon to be!)

By Murphy L. (line00cd.kdt.de - 195.8.225.205) on Saturday, September 30, 2000 - 08:57 am:

Not interested in the case??? Responsible for many people leaving??? If you're talking about Carl, you therefore have no clue what you're talking about.

And I am now beginning to understand how and why Tom gets tired of some of those who post and e-mail him, who are just looking for a free lunch! There ain't no such thing!
------------------------------------------
User dN
EdN is this your posting or someones elses ?
(For the case that this is your message, I would give a re, If I may)
Thanks

By Tom Voigt (aca1c2c5.ipt.aol.com - 172.161.194.197) on Saturday, September 30, 2000 - 11:27 am:

This message board gives me the option to ban by i.p. should it become necessary. All I need to do is spend $35 for the upgrade, which takes about an hour.
Do I need to do this? Certain idiots (Stromjunkie and his "group") are making me think it's a good idea.

By Jake (Jake) (spider-tk074.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.206.209) on Saturday, September 30, 2000 - 05:25 pm:

Tom wrote:
"All I need to do is spend $35 for the upgrade, which takes about an hour."

Does this mean I'll finally be able to bid on Arthur Allen's toupee?

--Jake
http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/index.html
"This is Sy Sperling Speaking..."

By Ed N. (spider-tq051.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.201.66) on Saturday, September 30, 2000 - 11:00 pm:

Murphy L: yes, it was me. After I posted it, I noticed I hadn't typed the "E," but figured everyone would know who it was (who else writes like me?).

By Glen (dialup-209.245.225.13.dallas1.level3.net - 209.245.225.13) on Sunday, October 01, 2000 - 11:40 am:

Oscar wrote:

After your last response I'm beginning to think that you are less than charitable. byt, hey, I'd probably be pissed as well. take my explanation or not, I really don't care. I've given you what I know, and I could be spending my time doing more valuable things.

This may or may not apply to you, but I admit I am less than charitable in the face of gross stupidity. This does not apply to "stupid" questions because the questioner is at least trying to seek knowledge. These posts sought nothing. I admit that many of the posts signed "Oscar" demonstrate an intelligent and inquisitive mind, and I only hope that they continue to do so.

As to the "common area", the responsibility still remains with you. If you haven't taken steps to secure your identity online, this is no fault of mine. Perhaps you can work with Tom Voight to assign you a password so that only the posts from you that can be verified reach this board? Do your "compatriots" also share your credit card numbers and test results? Get with it if you want to be taken seriously, Oscar. The responsibility is yours.

I look forward to more positive communications from you in the future.

By Oscar (dialup-63.210.126.53.losangeles1.level3.net - 63.210.126.53) on Sunday, October 01, 2000 - 05:55 pm:

Dear Glen,
Thank you for getting back to me, and thank you for the compliment. Yes, I am to be blamed for having a trusting nature. Let me clarify:
1. The common area was perhaps misleading, as it is more of a suite- four joined rooms. I use my friends computers, as they do mine, when problems arise etc. Hence, I know it can only be three other people. I have a rather erratic sleep schedule, and we tend to come and go. Also, I sometimes leave my entire system 'wide
open'...that will not continue.
2. I know who posted under my name- like I said it could be one of three people (or a combination). I printed out the 'posts' that were not mine and demanded an explanation. The result: "uh, gee, it was just a prank! Chill out." Well, needless to say, I told them that I did not find it very funny at all; in fact, a "heavy-hitter" on the board was pissed off...etc. Rest assured, this will NOT happen again. College pranks can be very stupid!
3. I have enjoyed the material you were able to come up with; your one response to my real posting on this minor board was very interesting. I am not anxious to incur the wrath of anyone who has devoted so much hard work to this project.
4. I am working on something Zodiac-related and I am not anxious to burn any bridges. Capice?
5. I am responsible for what happened, and I do feel badly if your feelings were hurt.
I feel that a truce has been reached. Now, let's get back to the Zodiac. Okay?
Ever Your Humbled and Loyal Malcontent,
Oscar.
p.s. The line "mental jacobin" was far beneath me, as was the Archie Bunker" stuff. Nice friends,huh?

By Chrissy Shaw (Chrissy_Shaw) (dialup-67.26.88.233.dial1.seattle1.level3.net - 67.26.88.233) on Monday, October 07, 2002 - 02:19 pm:

Dear Matt:

Regarding your initial questions as to the use of various weapons. I suspect that Z did not wish to be caught and before he ever claimed a homicide, or perhaps even commited a particular homicide, he planned as to confuse. It might then seem counter productive for him to turn around and prove he murdered someone.

Part of this has to do with the fact that in the 1960's common wisdom(seldom wise and far too common) was that a killer was unable to change their MO. Certainly part of Z's MO changes were simply another attempt to prove how "special" he was and beyond normal. MO's then and now are subject to change and the more organized a predator is, the more likely one is to see variation. This is not exclusive of sexual serial homicide, but across the board in all manner of crimes.

CS