Zodiackiller.com Message Board: General Zodiac Discussion: Did Zodiac Stalk His Victims Or Troll For Them?

A continuation of "The Car Door" thread . . .

Okay, was Z a stalker or troller? Let's begin to examine the determining evidence and see if this can be figured out rationally and/or scientifically.

If the three "sunbathing girls" at Lake Berryessa did, in fact, see Zodiac at LB around 3:30pm, then we can safely conclude that Cecilia and Bryan had been trolled for because eyewitnesses can place them in Napa, "heading for St. Helena" at 3:30pm on 9/27/69. Right? If the "guy who was acting strange" at LB was not Zodiac, then an argument can be made that perhaps Cecilia was being stalked, and that her killer had simply followed her to Lake Berryessa.

If we can all agree on this foundation, then we have a legitimate "hot topic." What do you say folks? Is there enough evidence to lead us in a particular direction? If so, let's have at it.

Scott

Not that I believe Zodiac knew his victims,just to contribute to the possibility,I offer the following(depending on what you choose to read into them):-
1.there is the CJB connection.
2.The fact he wore a hood might suggest one or both knew him to see.
3.If we assume he was out looking for a COUPLE to kill,did he pick a bad spot,given the time of year with few people around.Might at least suggest he followed them from somewhere.
Just a few thoughts

Good points, Lapumo. However . . .

1. We don't know if there is a CJB connection. At this point, CJB still falls into the same unknown category as Donna Lass and Kathleen Johns: Unconfirmed, but possible Zodiac victims.

2. The fact that he wore a hood more than likely suggests MO -- it was necessary to successfully elude detection. I doubt that he cared whether or not Cecilia and Bryan saw him because, IMHO, he didn't expect either one of them to live.

3. Who's to say that Zodiac hadn't been trolling for victims at LB for several days before finally discovering his intended victims? Or maybe he just got lucky.

I personally don't mind speculation, but so far that's all we have. Hardly enough to prove either side of the coin.

Scott

Plus what drove me in this direction in the first place: the time of day on the car door -- unique to this event -- and the only thing I can think of that makes this a holiday, which I thought was his MO.

I really don't see Z choosing a Jewish holiday unless the victims were Jewish. However, being SDA and this being the Sabboth that was ending at 6:59 -- within the half hour. It makes sense.

Is there any other "holiday" connections you can make?

I have elsewhere heard people say that they had questions about this actually being a Z killing since it failed the MO test is a few spots. This removes some of the problems. Also, it gives a plausible and interlinking reason for the time of day reference.

Tom F

Scott: 3. Who's to say that Zodiac hadn't been trolling for victims at LB for several days before finally discovering his intended victims? Or maybe he just got lucky.
======

That would not fit his MO. He likes to kill on Saturday. What good would trolling any time but Saturday do?

I have heard on several reports that the Lake was pretty deserted that day.

Didn't someone just in the last couple of days say that when he was there, he and his wife were the only couple he saw? [Sorry, I don't recall who said that.]

It sounds like poor trolling grounds.

Tom F

I have never thought the man looking at the three girls was the killer. It doesn't fit. It really is not that unusual for a man to view 3 pretty young girls as they sunbathe. Ask any woman who has gone to the beach, there are plenty of watchers. Happens everyday. Z zeemed to be much more organized than that, i,e. there was a method to his madnezzz.

Tom F wrote: "That would not fit his MO. He likes to kill on Saturday. What good would trolling any time but Saturday do?"

The LHR murders occurred on Friday, Dec. 20, 1968.

"Didn't someone just in the last couple of days say that when he was there, he and his wife were the only couple he saw? [Sorry, I don't recall who said that.]"

That was me. But I was there in April, the very beginning of the season, not in September, just as kids are returning to school. I don't think it would be at all strange to find more couples at the lake during the tail end of the season.

"I have elsewhere heard people say that they had questions about this actually being a Z killing since it failed the MO test is a few spots. This removes some of the problems. Also, it gives a plausible and interlinking reason for the time of day reference."

Oh God, here we go again . . .

This subject has already been discussed in exhaustive detail on at least two other threads. Can't we please, for arguments sake, assume that LB was a Zodiac crime? If not, let's adjourn to the appropriate thread. That is, if Tom V will allow it. I'm sure he wouldn't mind as long as something fresh was brought to the table. But for now, can we please stick to the "holiday" and "stalking vs. trolling" theme?

Scott

Additionally, if we want to include CJB and Kathleen Johns in the discussion, then consider these facts with regard to Z's MO:

CJB was murdered on Sunday, Oct. 30, 1966.

Kathleen Johns was given "a rather interesting ride" on Sunday, March 22, 1970.

I'll agree that it seems that Zodiac liked to kill on weekends, but only on Saturday? Nope.

Scott

Sylvie wrote: "It really is not that unusual for a man to view 3 pretty young girls as they sunbathe. Ask any woman who has gone to the beach, there are plenty of watchers. Happens everyday."

If this is so common, then why would they think it unusual in the first place? I don't think it was because he was merely watching them. However, I could be wrong.

Scott

Scott,

1st: I was going to mention that his first credited murder did not seem to fit the MO exactly. I don't know. I have read concerning other criminals that MOs are a developing thing, which stabilize given time. Besides I have not really directed my attention to this crime that much. There may be more to it than we are consciously observing.

2nd: Still, I said that I read in some report on this killing that the Lake was somewhat deserted that day. School or no school. Tail of the season or not.

3rd: I am a little puzzled by your attitude toward this. I am not intending to discuss "this subject." I just mentioned that others had problems and that this would assuage what problems they had. I am not about to discuss anything but the subject at hand. The existence of this other subject does not diminish the fact that this sunset/6:30/SDA thing jibes.

Tell me, Scott, do you have a particular theory that you favor? I’m curious.


Let me explain something about my method. In creative efforts there is a premium on making new connections. I allow myself to be open to new connections. I suspend judgement. This open phase is followed by a testing phase where I beat on the connections and see if they hold. It is much like the annealing process of the alternate heating, pounding and cooling of steel. The process allows you to question what I think of as local minima -- local low energy positions that are comfortable and satisfying. If they are true minima then the system will settle down to them again and again. If they are not, then the heating up process allows the formation of something closer to the truth.

I believe the productive route for us here and now would be the investigation of Shepard in Northern California and back in her home where we have an interesting connection to another murdered woman.

For example, do we know schools of attendance; did she attend Riverside at all? Hang out there?

Is there any good source material on her?

Taking a sample suspect, what exactly was Allen’s involvement in the area?

I’m looking for data.

Tom F

PS
The 6:30 inscription has bothered me. It is unique here. The only reason I could think of him doing it before was to raise the level of terror and to pervert the daylight. But I am left without the holiday connection. If this SDA thing is truly a driver, then we have solved two problems and we are in a lower energy state. For this to be a player we need to see if Z knew Shepard. Hence: what do we know about her? Surely the cops investigated all of this. It must be someplace.

Scott: If this is so common, then why would they think it unusual in the first place? I don't think it was because he was merely watching them. However, I could be wrong.
======

He wasn't only watching them. He walked over by them. I think it would be natural to pay attention to someone who parked near you and who walks to within 40-50 feet of you and watches you while you sunbathe. Besides there had been a murder. After a murder everything is unusual.

Tom F

"From this small group who refused to give up after the 'great disappointment' [the failure of Jesus to return to Earth on 22 October 1844] arose several leaders who built the foundation of what would become the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Standing out among these leaders were a young couple--James and Ellen G. White -- and a retired sea captain named Joseph Bates."

Source: http://www.adventist.org/history

Spencer

I don't know what is so puzzling about my attitude. I was merely trying to convey the idea that, if you would like to talk about whether or not LB was a Zodiac crime, then there are already several threads in which to discuss that issue. Furthermore, I'm applying (most of the time) the same "method" that you are. I've even stated this in more explicit terms elsewhere on the board.

I am also open to any ideas or thought processes. As you alluded too, the validity of new ideas, theories, hypotheses, etc., will ultimately prove either useful or useless if hammered against hard enough.

"Tell me, Scott, do you have a particular theory that you favor? I’m curious."

A particular theory with regard to what? The case in general, or a certain facet of the case?

Furthermore: "That would not fit his MO. He likes to kill on Saturday."

A preference to kill on a specific day or holiday is relevant to signature, not MO. Anyone care to disagree with, or corroborate this statement?

Finally (for now), "He wasn't only watching them. He walked over by them. I think it would be natural to pay attention to someone who parked near you and who walks to within 40-50 feet of you and watches you while you sunbathe."

That's exactly what I was trying to convey in my post. It would be "natural" to pay attention to something like that. You see, we can agree on something! I'm not trying to berate you, I truly appreciate your logic and determination and will certainly give credit where credit is due. I just don't understand why it seems so hard to realize that we are arguing opposite sides of the same coin. I can be swayed in either direction, it all depends on what the "data" dictates.

Scott

If Kaczynski did it, there's little doubt in my mind that he was camping in the area at the time. He never stayed at a motel as long as he had a car to transport him from place to place. When he gave up his car he took the bus, and stayed at fleabag motels. But in 1969, when he had his '67 Chevelle, he would definitely have camped out in a wilderness area, living off the land, as his father had taught him (and his brother) during his younger days.

What made the day "unusual" for the 3 sunbathers was that a murder had taken place that day in that area, not the man looking at them. You know how it is after a crime has occurred, everyone thinks of what they were doing, if they noticed anyone, etc., oh God if I only had a dollar for everytime in my life, and I got stared at -- I'd be a kajillionaire,(and I am sure this is true for most women) this used to irritate me alot until I came to the conclusion that men are in general very visual creatures, can't do anything about it. Visual does not equal Z, though. No, with the hood and highly ritualistic nature of this crime, I think Z knew what he wanted.
Fife: in answer to your question, the article stated that Shephard went to UN Riverside. This is about a 20 min. drive from Loma Linda, one passes the exit to RCC en route.

Scott,

Well what I found so puzzling was your very quick and passionate leap from me saying that the SDA/sundown/6:30 combination answered questions that some people had, to your thinking that I was going to debate the crediting of this killing to Z. It sounds to me like that whole argument was a little painful to experience. Anyway, that's not where I was going.

Okay, Merriam Webster says MO = a method of procedure; especially: a distinct pattern or method of operation that indicates or suggests the work of a single criminal in more than one crime.

It's in the ballpark and it's been around about 350 years longer. Signature, in this sense, is of recent coinage and I don't think it's actually settled down in concept that much. I fail to see the point in arguing over terms like this when the meaning and sense is clear.

[BTW, Do you want to proffer a definition of signature vis-à-vis MO? Please do, since this seems to be a working issue.]

But, be that as it may, do we have a holiday signature/MO/pattern with Z? If so, what is it at LB?

BTW, right now I am trying to sway myself more than anyone else.

Tom F

Sylvie,

You said:
in answer to your question, the article stated that Shephard went to UN Riverside. This is about a 20 min. drive from Loma Linda, one passes the exit to RCC en route.
======

Where is this article? I would like to get my hands on everything written on Shepard.

Tom F

Fife: Look at Spencer's post of 7/11/01 @ 9:57p.m.
of his Vallejo Times-Herald account.
Despite other inaccuracies I believe this one on Shepard is correct as I have heard this elsewhere.

By the way, Loma Linda is a Seventh Day Adventist university. Zynchronicity?

One curious fact that everyone has missed is that, as I recall, Cecelia had returned to PUC the very same day she was murdered. She was there to collect the belongings she left behind at the end of the previous semester. Thus, IF Z knew her and stalked her in Riverside (or here, for that matter), we have a bit of a problem: we might assume that Z lived here in the Bay Area, probably Vallejo (I've mentioned reasons for my thinking in other threads, and that doesn't necessarily mean I'm thinking of Allen either), and Cecelia had returned home for the summer of 1969. Now, with both killer and victim living over 400 miles apart, and with Z apparently taking victims at random, how then did he manage to choose someone he knew and may have been stalking on the only day she was here? Did he know that she was going to be here? If so, how did he know? That fact has lead me to believe that the LB attack was completely random.

Also, LB can be relatively deserted even on the weekends. I've popped over there once or twice on a Saturday or Sunday, only to find no one else there (at least not in the immediate area). Weekdays are generally even more so.

Which reminds me, if it was thought in Loma Linda that Cheri Jo and Cecelia somehow knew each other, wouldn't it have been obvious for their families and friends to start asking questions of each other to see if there actually was a connection?

Thought: People say that Z didn't expect anyone to live. Well, it seems to me that when he wanted to kill he killed. If he wanted to make sure that Shepard and Hartnell were dead, he just needed two slits with the knife. But he didn't do a coup de grace. He left them in agony. This was a very brutal thing he did at LB. It is probably the cruelest and sadistic thing he did. I think he probably just didn't care whether they lived or died. This was the one time he was masked like this and he knew he was not going to get id'ed. In the mean time the couple suffered terrible pain.

Sott,

I got a good current definition of signature, now. It's serial personation. I can live with it.

So what is the personation at LB?

The hood isn't, but the square top and the symbol are.

Was there a holiday angle? Was the time of day personation?

So what was the intended crime at LB? We need to know that to understand his personation. Was his goal murder or to inflect brutal pain with total disregard for life?

Tom F

Ed,

It's funny to me how you argued what I considered the opposite point to what you concluded. I'll tell you why.

If LB is typically so deserted then why would anyone go there to troll?

Z takes credit for murdering a woman in Riverside. What are the chances that Z would randomly choose a woman to kill that lived four hundred miles away and near the other woman?

BTW, I wasn't thinking that Shepard knew Bates. I was thinking that they were both known by their killer.

Also, I was musing along the lines of your first thought when you posted. She had spent the summer in SoCal then came up to gather the remnants of her stuff.

If he did have some connection to know her, then the fact that he would go stalking the one day she was in the neighborhood does make perfect sense.

I really wish I could find out more details about Shepard.

Tom F

Actually, I was referring to Sylvie's comment earlier about a possible connection between the two. Also, LB is not typically deserted (all the time), it depends on the season; on Saturdays, it's common on Monticello Road to get stuck behind convoys of people towing their boats to the lake. It's quite irritating.

As far as randomness goes, in this particular case, zynchronicity happens. We see it all the time here. What definitely would be suspicious is if both happened to be good friends, and were murdered at random three years and 400 miles apart. If so, then it ain't random.

But my argument is that unless Z somehow knew beforehand when she would be here, and where she would be in the area, then it must have been a random murder, whether she was from Riverside or not, because she was here for only the day, and had gone to LB with Hartnell almost as an afterthought, and no one knew they were going there. They didn't even know themselves until late that afternoon. If they didn't know, how then could Z have stalked her there? Once again, it must be random. So, unless he knew she would be in the Bay Area and his own territory, he couldn't stalk her.

"Zynchronicity happens." It just occurred to me... will this become a new catch-phrase here???

Ed,
From what I heard they did ask questions, but found nothing concrete and you know how RPD had Cheri's boyfriend so high as a suspect, they really did not consider other possibilities no matter how strange or coincidental (it's like tunnel vision). Loma Linda doesn't have a high school so the kids have always had to go to either Redlands High or a h.s. in Riverside. I don't know which one Shepard went to, but it would be worth checking out. The feeling was that two young women of about the same age living within 15 min. of each other in a rather sparsely populated area may have known people in the same crowd. They were the two young women that also closely resembled each other, and were killed in the same fashion. But remember back then, stalking was not understood as it is today, there were no anti-stalking laws and the term had not even been coined. Furthermore, I think that if she was stalked it would have been a person with both ties to Vallejo and the Riverside area, not unusual if say he was from say Loma Linda and worked in Vallejo, and went back summers to see family. It is possible the stalking of Shephard could have begun that summer in L.L., he found out her plans and followed her up. I have also always felt that Cheri Jo was a stalking situation, where her killer had been "given the brush-off (real or imagined).
BTW Fife, it is also written in Graysmith's book (page 62) that Shepard was enrolled at UNR. BTW
Scott, I think that since the DNA test on Barnett turned out to be a positive NO MATCH, then given all that we know I think it is pretty conclusive that CJB was indeed a Z victim. Jury's still out on KJ though.

One other thing that might be worth looking into is how Shepard got up to the Bay area. A college student is always looking for rides up to their college away from home, I remember I spent one year at the U of Utah and coming from S.CA I was forever looking for rides up to Utah and back. What we kids for SC would do is put the word out-"Hey anyone making a trip up there, can I go along??"
Also, the fact that Hartnell and Shepard had not planned to go to L.B. would mean nothing as far as stalking goes, the whole thing of stalking is follow and wait, wait and follow.

I don't know where Cecelia went to high school, but she did attended the La Sierra campus of Loma Linda University at Riverside from 1965 to 1967, and transferred to PUC in 1967.

I would also think that if Z was stalking her, he must therefore have tailed her all day, or most of it. Surely she and/or Hartnell would have noticed the same car following them all day, especially if it followed them out to LB.

Ed I believe it was random also, that he was hunting for any victims that day. That he did watch the girls for a while,but felt too many girls in that group to kill.The description for the LB composite I thought was not only from the girls, but the people at the corner store who said this guy was asking the fastest way out of LB? As far a a Jewish Holiday, the only Jewish suspect I know of is Kane. If the killer was telling the truth about coming back from Colorado, Jim Phillips had been living in Colorado,and moved back to S.F. about that time. The time I think was important to the killer 6:30, maybe to him it was like 666 a satanic number.The killing was like a ritual.

Ed wrote: "I would also think that if Z was stalking her, he must therefore have tailed her all day, or most of it. Surely she and/or Hartnell would have noticed the same car following them all day, especially if it followed them out to LB."

I'll testify to the validity of this statement because I have been there, more than once. The roads are so narrow that you are constantly, as a driver, checking, then double checking, the road in front, behind, and to the sides of you. It's not as if you were on an Interstate Highway. I was very observant of the drivers around me. If I had been followed, it would have become patently clear miles and miles before I reached Lake Berryessa. And that's coming from SF, it's even more tricky coming from Napa; there are more turns than a NASCAR race on a half mile track.

If my wife and I had been followed to LB this past April, personally, I would have KNOWN it. Ed N sparked the memory, but this is empirical evidence that I challenge anyone to dispute.

Unless Bryan and Cecilia were about as sharp as bowling balls, and there is plenty of evidence which states otherwise, it can reasonably be concluded that Z happening along Bryan and Cecilia was an act of random trolling, not stalking. I have no doubt that Zodiac spent some time observing them; after all, that is what serial killers do before committing their heinous acts: engage in whatever fantasy that compels them to act out the murder in reality. There comes a point when the trolling phase becomes an act of stalking. This is the point when serial killers attempt to merge the fantasy in their heads with the reality that is in front of them: A "point of no return," if you'll pardon the cliche.

Okay, I'm ready to be crucified by all that are willing. But you'll never be able to get me to refute that which I have seen with my own eyes.

It will take a lot of hard evidence to sell me on the stalking angle, because all of the known evidence seems to point to a random occurrence that, by default, must be categorized as an example of trolling. Nonetheless, the challenge remains open for those who care to indulge.

Sincerely,

Scott

Scott, Ed, et al.,

Here I want some input from people that have been or are in the neighborhood.

Do we know the route that Hartnell drove on that day? Can someone write out what the proposed directions were?

Here is what I presume:
Start at PUC in Angwin
Howell Mountain Road south entering St. Helena on Pope Street.
Left on Hwy 29 to Napa
Now I have absolutely no idea. He bought a TV and left Shepard at the sale while he took it back to PUC(?). He picks her up and drives north on Hwy 29 to St. Helena. They meet some friends and drive them home. (I presume to Angwin?)
Deciding to go to LB they take Howell Mountain Road north to Pope Valley.
Pope Valley Road easterly to Pope Canyon Road.
Taking that north-easterly until it meets Berryessa-Knoxville Road, they take that southerly along the lake to the site.

Okay, If anyone can correct or flesh this out at all, please do. Also, if anyone can tell me where the A&W Boor Beer Stand was and the location of the sunbathers, I'd really appreciate that.

Now, particularly to Scott and Ed, what part(s) of this route we come up with is the part that makes it impossible to tail them on?

Also, I want to know why you are thinking it is impossible to tail them. I really didn't get it out of what you have written so far.

Was it because they are mountain roads? How does being on a mountain road make it impossible to tail someone? I am trying to follow the logic that leads Scott to such a definitive denial of the possibility.

Thanks guys.

I think we're moving ahead nicely.

Tom F

Scott:
I'll testify to the validity of this statement because I have been there, more than once. The roads are so narrow that you are constantly, as a driver, checking, then double checking, the road in front, behind, and to the sides of you. It's not as if you were on an Interstate Highway. I was very observant of the drivers around me. If I had been followed, it would have become patently clear miles and miles before I reached Lake Berryessa. And that's coming from SF, it's even more tricky coming from Napa; there are more turns than a NASCAR race on a half mile track.
======

Okay I dispute it. This morning I went out and drove on a mountain two-lane highway that wound through the mountains from one valley to another.

When you are on a mountain road like this there is nowhere else to go. You end up in a convoy for the duration of the trip. I did not feel suspicious of the car behind me even though he was following me for tens of miles.

Easily from St. Helena there is but one realistic route you would take -- the one I described in my previous posting. I think that if you happen to get behind someone entering Howell Mountain Road and you are going to LB, then you will be naturally behind that car the whole way.

Do you question this as a basic fact?

Also, what turns are you talking about from Napa? From Napa to St. Helena is a straight shot up Hwy 29. Then a right on Pope Street sets you onto Howell Mountain Road and you're in the groove to LB.

Like I said I am really at a loss to understand how this is such an improbability/impossibility.

Also, I am not giving Hartnell any gold stars for alertness. From the account I read in Graysmith, he was warned by Shepard repeatedly of a man approaching and he apparently was so enthralled with her, or something, that he never responded until she shouted, "My God, he's got a gun!" She watched him approach from about 300 yeards.

Also important: Hartnell tells us that Z was wearing bloused trousers over these low-cut military boot shoes. What did the three girls describe about the voyeur? They all agreed about a short-sleeve sweater-shirt and dark pants and t-shirt hanging out in back. No-one mentioned bloused trousers and boots. After all those fashion details, I am amazed there was no mention of bloused trousers, since I think I have taken note of every person I have ever seen with bloused trousers – more so than people without their t-shirt tucked in. Bloused trousers are very unusual. It is a military and hunter thing to do. When I see them, I am thinking in the back of my mind, “Where’s the gun?” At this time, I have grave doubts that the voyeur was Z.

Tom F

Tom F: You raise some very valid points, and I by no means consider this issue dead. I simply don't have the time for a lengthy post right now. I won't have time to post a response until Sunday.

See y'all then!

Scott

Okay,

I have just come from a screening of The Most Dangerous Game.

What I see in this film is something very disturbing and at the same time reinforcing to the theory that he knew and stalked his victims.

Zaroff, the Zodiac character, in all cases had his victims as his guests. He spoke to them. He ate with them. He drank with them. Then he would reveal his inner sickness to them and he stalked them and hunted them.

The scenario written by Zaroff was to kill the man and then ravish and woman. In each of his couple murders, that is exactly what Z did. He did the man first and then the woman.

Zaroff: “Only after the kill does man know the true ecstasy of love.”

If Z indeed, as he is quoted, used The Most Dangerous Game as a scenario model then I have no alternative but to believe that his model scenario is one of hunting and stalking.

Come on guys! What are we talking about here?

Tom F

Of course Zodiac had over 80 days incuding 12 weekends between BRS and LB to "troll" for just the right situation. Maybe there were limited opportunities due to a decreased number of couples at LB, but if he cruised a couple of weekends, I'm sure he would, and obviously did, locate potential victims.

The evidence given by the dentist and his son about the encounter they had with a man that day at LB is very telling. According to Graysmith, they were 4/5th of a mile from the attack scene and could see a man watching them from a hundred yards away. Their description of the man and what he wore closly matched that of Hartnell. (incuding color of clothing Hartnell could make out under Z's costume) Once noticed, the man walked away from them, perhaps having noticed the 22 rifle they carried. If this was indeed Z, then he was obviously "trolling".

Bucko:

In the spirit of accuracy, let's quote the report:

"This location was approximately 8/10ths of a mile from the scene of the victim's vehicle. In the opinion of the R/Os, it is unlikely, unless this male subject had a vehicle in the immediate area, he could have traversed the area to the scene of the crime on foot. There are four coves of water between the scene of the crime and the area where the doctor saw the subject. The interview with DR. XXX and his son was terminated at that point."

That's police talk for: "This witness won't play."

Our grey matter is soft. What oozes from it tends to be soft, also. We're lookng for something more firm.

Still no proof that Z was trolling or ever was a troller.

He likely trolled, stalked then hunted to kill
and maim. This was a religious ritual and sacrifice. For this kind of production he would have had to have spent some time casting.
It's safe to assume the costume was in the works
some days or weeks before the attack as was a plan.
He may have had the game plan in his mind before selecting the individuals involved. But he could not have done this spur of the moment.

"...it is unlikely, unless this male
subject had a vehicle in the immediate area, he could have traversed the area to the scene of the crime on foot."

So, maybe he had a vehicle in the immediate area?

Roger

Tom F: the point is, if Z was stalking Hartnell and Shepard, just when did he start?

If a car follows you for several miles along a winding, one-lane mountain road, I can understand not being suspicious. But since they didn't know they were going to LB essentially until they were on their way there, and if Z was stalking them, he must have been following them all or part of the day to see where they would go. If that was the case, then surely one or the other would have noticed the same car following them all day in Napa, St. Helena and Angwin, and especially on their way to Z Island. But how did Z even know she would be in the area, especially since she only arrived that day? Since I've not read anything about suspicious cars tailing them all day, I chalk the attack up to random chance.

The other alternative is that if Z waited at PUC to see if she showed up so he could stalk her that afternoon to kill her, we still have the problem that Cecelia just happened to be there for that one single day. How did Z know she would even be there that day, if he was stalking her? She was there to collect the few belongings she left at the end of the previous semester; did Z know that too? It's highly unlikely that he would know her movements and intentions from over 400 miles away, stalker or not. That's why I chalk it up to random chance.

What was described in the report as an "A&W" is the shop at Sugar Loaf, approximately 1.5 miles from Oak Shores. It may have been an A&W in 1969, but is not today. The only other one in the area is in St. Helena, but the NSD report says specifically that it was at Sugar Loaf.

Ed,

I am presuming that he knew his victim. He would know that she was coming back on that day. This was the day to act. Also, you have to keep in mind that this is The Most Dangerous Game. Following someone all day long would be part of the hunt. It would be part of the danger. Did he not say that this was what turned him on?

Just because you think it's too risky, just because you would not have done it, has nothing to do with Z and his motivations.

In the cipher he said this is what turns him on, and now everyone wants to make Z into a rational man!?!?!

Please remember: my hypothesis is that he knew his victim. Arguing that he didn’t know them is not in line with the hypothesis.

The next aspect to study is whether he did know her. That is a different argument.

All of my arguments are toward a rational view that he knew her -- and its ramifications.

Now one more thing: I hear people mentioning the fact that she was 400 hundred miles away as making it unlikely. Well, that is a two-edged argument. IF Z had a connection with the Riverside area then the probability would be astronomically positive that he DID know her, given the fact that she was 400 miles away.

Probabilities have value based on their opening hypothesis. We can’t allow ourselves to get confused on this point.

Tom Fife

Tom F wrote: "Zaroff, the Zodiac character, in all cases had his victims as his guests. He spoke to them. He ate with them. He drank with them. Then he would reveal his inner sickness to them and he stalked them and hunted them."

Sure, but that is a movie. Is it plausible that Zodiac owned an island on which he could stalk his victims? No, I don't think so. Instead, it's more likely that Zodiac sought victims within close proximity to his residence. This certainly supports data offered by the FBI's BSU with regard to serial killers.

Furthermore, where is the evidence that a serial murderer would stalk a particular victim, kill them, then stalk another victim for his next kill? The question itself leads to a conclusion that the victim was "trolled" for by a killer who was experiencing "normal" serial killer tendancies.

There are plenty of examples of "stalking" in real life (read Sandy's posts, for example. I'm completely convinced that she is for real, BTW). It seems that victims of a stalker knew about the stalker prior to any assailment from said stalker. Victims who have been "trolled" for, on the other hand, almost never know that they have been "targeted" by a serial killer. It seems that if Cecilia and/or Bryan had been "stalked" that this would have surely been exposed during the murder investigation. I could be wrong, but in my mind this scenario is certainly within the realm of any homicide investigators' thinking.

However, in instances of serial murder, a killer doesn't stalk, kill, then stalk and kill again. Instead, he/she {trolls}, kills, then trolls and kills again. Most stalkers do not target victims beyong their targeted victim. Once that victim has been victimized by the stalker, the fanstasy is completed for them. Not so for a serial killer. The fantasy is rekindled in a cyclicic pattern; he/she "spots" a victim that meets the requirements of his/her fantasy, kills them, then returns to point "A" of their cycle.

In short, "stalkers" stalk and serial killers "troll." Zodiac, given the known evidence, was a serial killer, not a stalker.

More later.

Scott

PS. I can't get the spell checker to function on this particular computer, so please forgive any mistakes in spelling.

Scott,
Not all killers that murder in multiples are "serial killers" per se. I am in agreement with Doug here that Z, like Ted K. does NOT fall into the category of a "serial killer" though both Z and Ted K. killed more than once. There is a difference. "Serial killers" are a special breed, and I don't believe Zodiac was one.

Tom F wrote: "Please remember: my hypothesis is that he knew his victim. Arguing that he didn’t know them is not in line with the hypothesis. The next aspect to study is whether he did know her. That is a different argument."

Absolutely. My argument is that if the perp of the LB crime knew him/her, then sure, a good argument can be made that Cecilia and/or Bryan were stalked by their attacker. However, if the LB crime was committed by the Zodiac, then the likelihood that Cecilia and Bryan were trolled rather than stalked are greatly enhanced. Show me statistics that indicate otherwise, or key on a contradictory murder case which proves the opposite of this view, and one is undoubtedly referring to the minor percentage and not the greater.

If Zodiac knew Cecilia and/or Bryan, then chances are extremely good that he would have to have known the majority, if not all, of his victims. Given the evidence that we have, where can one reasonably conclude that Zodiac knew his victims? Sure, one could spotlight Mageau's testimony -- "he called her by her nickname, Dee" -- but given the nature of Mageau's, at best, "flighty" testimony, I wonder how much credibility his testimony brings to the discussion?

IMHO, it seems that the reverse is true: Zodiac was a serial killer. Therefore, by definition, he cannot, within reason, be categorized as a stalker. All I can say is, do the relevant research. If one cannot distinguish the obvious differences between a stalker and a serial killer, then I suggest rereading the relevant material.

One thing is certain (at least to me), the possibility exists that Zodiac knew his victims, which could readily indicate that he was, by definition, a stalker. However, to highlight this possibility is a contradiction to not only the known evidence, but the probability of the idea itself. It's more difficult to try and account for the margin of error if the known evidence contradicts the hypothesis. If I were to say, "The 1963 Chevelle SS is the best muscle car of that year because . . .", it wouldn't matter how many points of evidence I used to support my thesis, because the thesis itself is categorically wrong; Chevrolet didn't introduce the Chevelle line until 1964.

I honestly feel that the same correlation can be made with the Zodiac case. To say, "Zodiac stalked his victims because . . ." can be categorically dismissed because, IMHO, the evidence shows that he portrayed the behavior of a serial killer, not a stalker. By definition, we are talking about two entirely different animals. It seems to me that the evidence in this case points to a serial killer, not a stalker. If Zodiac had been a stalker, given research indicates that he would have stopped killing, and more than likely would have been apprehended or have committed suicide, shortly after murdering either CJB, or BLJ and DF, depending on which case you consider to have been Z's first.

If Zodiac stalked Bryan and Cecilia, then chances are good that he, by definition, stalked all of his victims, and therefore we would have an instance that goes against the calculated percentages. I'm still open to all possibilities, but I need enough concrete evidence to bridge the gap between said possibility and the known evidence that we already have.

"Drinkin' and thinkin' is better than drinkin' and drivin'" is a truism that is more honest than, "For what it's worth."

Scott

There is no reason to believe Zodiac had any connection to Shepard-Hartnell.
Unless someone can come up with something solid, why are we wasting time with this idle speculation?

I'm beginning to wonder the same thing. It's kinda like the "someone else (and not Z) did LB because of the minor differences" thread...

Probably a more important question(at this stage)
to examine would be whether there is any evidence to suggest Zodiac was familiar with the area.
There is evidence to suggest Zodiac was familiar with Riverside.The same applies to Vallejo.He would of most certainly planned and visited his route before the Stine killing.
It seems unlikely to me that Zodiac would travel all the way up to LB on that day.Would he be in the area for the weekend for some reason?

For those who have firsthand knowledge of the area: how much hunting and/or camping goes on in the vicinity?

Well,yes Douglas.My point was aimed at someone who was a frequent visitor to the area rather than
a once off.
If Zodiac killed CJB then he knew about an alleyway some distance from the library an area he felt comfortable.
In Vallejo he knew about secluded lovers lane area's,another suggestion that he knew the area and had visited more that once.
San Francisco..I do not know..however it does seem likely he would have at least rehearsed his route and planned for his "getaway".
If all the above is true maybe this is a particular trait we can associate with Zodiac.
He committed his crimes in areas he was familiar with!

I would agree with that, Lapumo. I also am regretfully inclined to agree that unless some real concrete evidence is found on the glaring
coincidences of the "Riverside area connection", it will until the case is solved either by DNA or an unlikely confession, remain one of the mysteries that this case is full of.....Why did Z wear the hood this time, but apparently not before??....Why was Cheri Jo with Z for an hour and a half before she was killed??...And many, many more. On the other hand if we didn't talk about the unknown's in this case, well there'd be not a whole lot to talk about since the entire thing is a huge unknown. most of all who is Z??
I've always found Davis and Ted K, to be stronger suspects than Allen, Kane is somewhat interesting as he is a Taurus, his name was clearly in the cipher, and he's jewish (so many of the dates of the murders seemed to have to do with the Kabal (jewish mysticism)-( Graysmith writes of this).He also seems to be in most of the right places. At times I must agree with Jake though, that Zodiac is an as yet unnamed suspect. And when we do find him, the prints will match.
Sandy, I know you adhere to the multiple Z theory,
you've said you think Ferrin was Darlene's husband, LB was Kane, etc. I am curious who you believe would be CJB in this theory, would it be Kane??

I think CJB was stalked and killed by someone living in the area that knew her.I think that person may well have been Zodiac.I also believe it was his first,however not part of the later "series"if you know what I mean!.
He did learn his lesson at Riverside,which is probably why he came better prepared and tied up his victims at LB.
Although,I do not think he could have used a gun at LB.I assume he would not risk drawing attention to the sound of gunfire,being so far away from his car.

"'Serial killers' are a special breed, and I don't believe Zodiac was one."

Where is the evidence that would support this "belief"? I feel that such evidence would shed some light on the "stalker vs. troller" debate. Can anyone offer a thorough analysis that would demonstrate the possibility that Zodiac was not a serial killer? I'd sincerely love to hear it.

"Unless someone can come up with something solid, why are we wasting time with this idle speculation?"

I believe it's possible that Tom F. is well on his way to coming up with something solid. Shouldn't we at least give him the benefit of the doubt? However, I've no desire to bite the hand that feeds me, so to speak. I agree, speculation alone will not lead us anywhere.

"It seems unlikely to me that Zodiac would travel all the way up to LB on that day."

I'm curious as to why someone would believe the above statement, especially in light of what the CA DOJ has to say about the writing on the car door.

"I also believe it was his first,however not part of the later "series"if you know what I mean!"

Actually, I don't know what you mean. Could you clarify this statement for me?

Scott

Scott: It's somewhat of a difficult thing to separate. For example, police officers and those in the military may have killed more than 1 person? Are they serial murderers? Their motives are different, but they have still killed more than 1 person. I think what Sylvie is saying is that Zodiac is not the typical serial killer that needs to kill on a regular basis. After Stine, he still sent letters for a year and a half without any positively identified murders. Sure, Zodiac did kill a number of people, but he appeared to be able to shut it on and off, unlike the Bundy's, Dahmer's etc who kept killing until they were caught. Bundy and Dahmer probably thought about their next right after they were done with their current victim. The letter writing in Z's career appeared to be a high priority, or maybe even more important than the murders.

Another example, a drug dealer that has killed more than one person. Does he fit the serial killer mold? Are he and Bundy/Dahmer very similar? His motives aren't to kill people, its just that there are people who he feels are in his way, or have wronged him.

I don't mean to imply that any of these people are less guilty. But I don't think that those who murder more than one can fit into one "serial killer" category.

"It's somewhat of a difficult thing to separate. For example, police officers and those in the military may have killed more than 1 person? Are they serial murderers? Their motives are different, but they have still killed more than 1 person."

I honestly don't see how a correlation can be made between a serial killer, and a police officer or soldier who may have killed more than one person. Killing "in the line of duty" is a far cry from killing for "pleasure," don't you think?

Let's take a look at some definitions for serial murder.

The first comes from the FBI's Crime Classification Manual, 1992. The manual defines serial murder as "three or more separate events in three or more separate locations with an emotional cooling-off period between homicides." (Italics are mine.)

"Homicide" is an altogether different animal than killing for self defense, or killing "in the line of duty." The biggest problem with the FBI's definition is that it doesn't account for a killer who murders only two people, had a "cooling-off period" between the two murders, but was arrested, killed, or committed suicide, prior to killing a third victim. Additionally, their definition also doesn't account for killers such as Gacy, Dahmer, Dean Corll, Dennis Nilsen, or Leonard Lake and Charles Ng (sp?), who killed all or most of their victims at a single location.

A second definition, one that I like much better than that offered by the FBI, was published by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in 1988. They defined serial killing as "a series of two or more murders, committed as separate events, usually, but not always, by one offender acting alone. The crimes may occur over a period of time ranging from hours to years. Quite often the motive is psychological, and the offender's behavior and the physical evidence observed at the crime scenes will reflect sadistic, sexual overtones."

It seems that the NIJ's definition has even been adopted by the FBI. In 1997, FBI Special Agent Richard Eggleston defined serial killing as "two or more killings committed as separate events, usually by a lone offender." (Italics are mine.) [The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers, Newton, Michael, 2000, Checkmark Books, NY, NY. Page 205.]

Now, does Zodiac fall within the parameters of these definitions? It certainly seems that way to me.

Scott

I think the point is that the definition is too general. Most, if not all serial killers can fall within the parameters of that definition.

"usually, but not always, by one offender acting alone".

Well the only 2 possibilities are a group or alone.

"ranging from hours to years"

That also covers the entire time range possible. You can't kill from hours to centuries, and someone who kills 2 or more within minutes is not a serial killer, but more of a mass murderer.

"the physical evidence observed at the crime scenes will reflect sadistic"

What killing scene isn't sadistic? Unless its poison where the victim appears to have died from natural causes and the outside of the body appears normal. There have been a few in medicine that killed a number of patients over a period of years, but through overdose. Those crime scenes won't "reflect sadistic, sexual overtones". The victims will not have been terrorized, and the doctor will give them something to end them quickly. If the victims show a number of symptoms it will get attention. Are they not serial killers?

Perhaps its good just to have one general definition, but there should also be branches of the different types of serial killers.

Dahmer - rape, cannibalism, dissolves/dismembers bodies, does not taunt police
Zodiac - shoots them, leaves bodies there, taunts police

Yes, there both serial killers, but they are different in many ways.

Yes Zodiac is within the parameters, but I do believe that Zodiac was not a "garden-variety" serial killer. I agree with Sylvie that until something more comes out of the Riverside connection it's going to be difficult to nail down the stalking vs. trolling angle. Given Zodiac's unpredictability, isn't it a possibility that some victims he stalked and some he trolled for?
-Mark

Scott, see my essay "Mass Murder and Modus Operandi," here. The problem with the term "serial killer" is that it has been applied too loosely to all classes of killers who commit a "series" of "killings," no matter how those killings were motivated. Typically, "serial killer" has come to mean a killer who kills for the purpose of sexual (or other) stimulation and for whom the act of killing may be secondary to the activities that occur either before or after the killing itself.

The National Center for the Victims of Crime defines serial murder:

---

Quote:

Serial murder is the supreme manifestation of violent criminality as evidenced by the horrifying acts perpetrated against innocent victims. The crime is often an interrelation and culmination of extreme sexual perversity and brutal homicide which generally leaves the victim in a condition far worse tha[n] simply the infliction of death. Many victims of serial killers endure prolonged periods of suffering until the lethal assault saves them from further torment...Although serial murder is relatively rare in comparison to homicide or violent crime in general, the serial killer receives much more disdain from society because of the agony he inflicts upon the victim in what the public considers a senseless occurrence.

---

Zodiac doesn't fit this description, and I've argued in my essay that his character type is far closer to that of the mass murderer.

"Well the only 2 possibilities are a group or alone."

Very true. But isn't it understandable why the NIJ would reflect this fact in their definition? If they hadn't, then technically, one could argue that Leonard Lake and Charles Ng weren't serial killers because they didn't act alone.

"That also covers the entire time range possible. You can't kill from hours to centuries, and someone who kills 2 or more within minutes is not a serial killer, but more of a mass murderer."

Sure, one can't kill "from hours to centuries." But I don't believe that was their -- NIJ's -- intention when they stated, "The crimes may occur over a period of time ranging from hours to years." It seems that they were simply stating that a serial killer could conceivably kill tomorrow, then not kill again until later that night, or not until weeks, months, or even years later. Secondly, didn't Zodiac attack and/or kill BLJ/DF, Darlene Ferrin/Mike Mageau, and Cecilia/Bryan within minutes of each other at each respective crime scene?

"There have been a few in medicine that killed a number of patients over a period of years, but through overdose. Those crime scenes won't 'reflect sadistic, sexual overtones'."

Let's examine the definition of sadism for a second. The American Heritage Dictionary defines sadism as 1)"The perversion of deriving sexual satisfaction from the infliction of pain on others. 2)Delight in cruelty. 3)Extreme cruelty."

In my mind, a serial "poisoner" certainly falls within the realm of definitions 2 and 3. Yes, a serial poisoner is still a serial killer. Although, in certain instances, their motive to kill may be different than the desire to kill for sexual gratification.

"Given Zodiac's unpredictability, isn't it a possibility that some victims he stalked and some he trolled for?"

Sure it's a possibility. However, the known evidence -- that which is concrete and non-speculative -- doesn't seem to indicate that Zodiac stalked his victims. We have to remember that, at this point in time, CJB is not a confirmed Zodiac victim. Even is she was, there's still no concrete evidence that suggests that she was, in fact, stalked as opposed to trolled by her killer.

Scott

Douglas: I'm not sure about categorizing Zodiac as a mass murderer. However, before I take a swing at your pitch, as it were, I'll refrain from posting a rebuttal or concurrence until I have reread your essay. I do thank you for posting that definition though.

Scott

Scott,
To clarify statements made in my last post.
Starting with Riverside which I believe was a Zodiac crime.Why?,because it's the simplest explanation.You have a murder followed by
4 letters,including a confession letter which DID
include details of the crime.
The police believed initially that this was a crime committed by the author of the letters,and why not?The problem came(as I see it)when Barnett
became a suspect.However Barnett's handwriting did not match,it was later proved that he could not have been Zodiac.This is when the different theories began to take shape which separated Barnett from Zodiac,Zodiac from the crime.Since the DNA does not match Barnett we are back to square one.One other point made as to why Zodiac did not kill CJB was because of the sexual overtones in both the letters and murder,which I will deal with in relation to the crime itself.
CJB arrived at the library about 6pm.We now have three options here.Her killer was already on the scene "trolling"for victims, he followed her there,he was "stalking"her or he arrived later.Options 2 and 3 would mean he had to know her.He not only had to know her car he also had to know she was alone.
The fact that he later murdered her where he did suggests he knew the area.He also seems to have spent some time with her before her murder.
I agree with Douglas here,that this may have not started out as a murder and may have been an attempted rape.Getting back to the sexual overtones...I believe this guy had major problems with his sexuality and was not least of all confused.I think this was the same Zodiac that "evolved"into the later version.
Zodiac later went on to commit a series of murders and there appears to be a method to his madness.He did not claim responsibility for CJB until the link was discovered,which is partly why
I made the statement about CJB not being in the same series.I think he made a conscious decision
to terrorize the bay area by killing young couples
and taunting police,the CJB murder was not part of this"masterplan".
I have outlined in previous posts in this thread
as to why I believe Zodiac "stalked"areas he was familiar with.When I said I did not believe Zodiac would drive all the way up to LB on the day
What I actually meant was I do not think he would go all the way up to somewhere he was unfamiliar with.Zodiac was a planner,he knew LHR and BRS,he knew when the best time was to find and kill his victims..on Friday night and weekends.
I do believe dates were important to him and that he set out to kill on those dates.He came to LB
PREPARED.I think he knew the area and had been there before.I would not be surprised to find he was spending the weekend somewhere close.

I've reread Doug's essay entitled, Mass murder and Modus Operandi, and feel that it does warrant discussion on this particular thread if the following can be considered valid:

If we can determine that Zodiac had a psychology more like that of a mass murderer than a serial killer, then we can somehow conclude that Zodiac stalked his victims rather than trolled for them. If this is true, then we can conclude -- despite lack of evidence to the contrary -- that perhaps Zodiac knew some of his victims, and therefore the SDA angle may prove to be the vital link between him and his intended victims.

It may appear that I'm being facetious and attempting to make a farce of this thread, but you'll have to take me at my word that that is not my intention. However, before moving headlong into this discussion, I'd like to have some feedback regarding the validity and/or worth of the aforementioned thesis/theory/hypothesis/concept/b.s. Am I complicating the issue, simplifying it too much, or missing the mark entirely?

I will leave you with a couple of tidbits regarding Zodiac's alleged status (according to Doug) as a mass murderer rather than a serial killer. First, a quote from Doug's essay:

"Serial bombers, whose victimology often follows the pattern of taking individual victims, yet whose psychology favors that of the mass murderer, engage in no physical contact with their victims that might allow them to meet the definitions of brutality and sexual perversion that are the hallmarks of the serial killer . . . unique cases such as that of David Berkowitz (the "Son of Sam") present a clear picture of a "serial" killer whose psychology resembles that of the mass murderer, in that his crimes were apparently without motivation, were perpetrated quickly at arm's length, and failed to manifest the physical brutality, torture, or sexual perversion that define the "serial killer" paradigm."

I have to argue against this. Lake Berressa clearly demonstrates something other than an "arm's length" attack. It also demonstrated "physical brutality" and was "sexually perverted" in that it fulfilled some psychological need for Zodiac that was very likely sexual in nature. Additionally, take a look at Zodiac's victimology. With the exception of Stine, all of his victim's were couples, and extra savagery was extended to all of the females. I still believe that sexuality played into Zodiac's psychological profile, at least in his first three attacks, and that it's possible that his motive for killing eventually changed. BTW, I'm at a loss as to how someone could characterize being shot by a .44 Special, 9mm, and especially a .22 Long Rifle round, as less than "physically brutal." Someone who is shot doesn't necessarily die right away, and instead can die in utter agony, and in some cases, ala Mageau, can survive after having spent a considerable amount of time in tremendous pain.

Having said this, I contend that "physical brutality, torture, or sexual perversion" is not necessarily criteria that is applicable to all serial killers. The infamous "Moonlight Murderer" who terrorized Texarkana in the 1940s, had a strikingly similar MO and victimology to that of the Zodiac. There were instances when the killer in Texarkana demonstrated extreme brutality toward his victims, just as Zodiac did at Lake Berryessa (actually, even more so. He also wore a hood, btw.); there were also instances when the killer simply shot down his victim's "at arm's length" and quickly disappeared. The major difference between Zodiac and the Texarkana killer, however, lies in the fact that only Zodiac was known to correspond with the police and media. Actually, considering that the "Moonlight Murderer," unlike Zodiac, had no problem gathering public attention, if in fact that was part of his motive, this idea could factor into Zodiac's letter writing campaign. If media exposure and public attention figures into their motive, then the Moonlight Murderer already had something that Zodiac avidly sought and eventually attained: terror and panic within the community.

I really don't care for the "physical brutality, torture, or sexual perversion" stigmata that many definitions include in their wording. How would you (the board in general) characterize the Texarkana perp? Was he a serial killer, mass murderer, or, in light of the fact that the murders all took place in less than a year and abruptly stopped (he was never caught, by the way. FYI for those who didn't know.), was he more of a "spree killer" like the infamous Charles Starkweather?

If you throw Henry Lee Lucas into the equation, you have yet another example of a serial killer who could be overtly brutal and/or sexual in his attacks in one instance, then kill quickly and "at arm's length" in the next.

Sorry this post was so lengthy, but this is quite the conundrum; at least for me.

Bye. For now . . .

Scott

Scott, I should observe that there are very few methods of killing a healthy, living human being that don't involve some measure of "brutality." The difference lies in the amount of brutality ancillary to the crime. If brutality above and beyond that needed to perform the act of killing is present, I'd call that a good sign that the killer is getting something more out of the act than simply dispatching his victim.

At LB, Zodiac had two victims in an isolated area, bound, and completely within his control. Yet he expended no force other than that required to ensure himself that they had been killed. He had the perfect opportunity to despatch Hartnell and then abuse Cecilia Shepard at his leisure; at the very least he had the opportunity to taunt, berate or otherwise abuse the pair. That he did none of those things indicates that his primary intention was nothing more than dealing death. That he used a knife was probably for the sake of producing the maximum terror in the public imagination, once the crime had been publicized--or, perhaps, because in daylight a gun report might have aroused attention.

The major difference between Zodiac and the Texarkana case is probably the one you stated--namely, the Zodiac correspondences, which indicate that the murders were perpetrated, at least in substantial part, for the sake of publicity through terror. That's the signature of a mass murderer, in my opinion.

Scott Mused:

If we can determine that Zodiac had a psychology more like that of a mass murderer than a serial killer, then we can somehow conclude that Zodiac stalked his victims rather than trolled for them. If this is true, then we can conclude -- despite lack of evidence to the contrary -- that perhaps Zodiac knew some of his victims, and therefore the SDA angle may prove to be the vital link between him and his intended victims

then queried:

the aforementioned thesis/theory/hypothesis/concept/b.s.

Response: none of the above. Or at least add tautology to the list of choices. As I appreciate your drift, the point of determining serial vs mass psychology is to prove whether he stalked or trolled. But what is the point of that, other than to determine his dominant psychology? To prove the SDA link? If he is a mass murderer/stalker type/ then the SDA link would apply to all the victims? But does it? Isn't that easier to test the idea by determining whether anyone but Sheperd had such a link? Did they? Not that I have heard. So, if we can prove directly that there is no SDA link among any of the other victims, what possible point could there be in proving circumstantially that there was?

"If brutality above and beyond that needed to perform the act of killing is present, I'd call that a good sign that the killer is getting something more out of the act than simply dispatching his victim."

I agree completely. That's why I contend that Zodiac, at LB, did demonstrate "brutality above and beyond that needed to perform the act of killing." If his intention was nothing more than to "dispatch" Cecilia and Bryan, he could have easily just slit their throats. Quick, simple, effective, and no screams of agony to contend with. Instead, he chose to stab them multiple times, and left the scene without really knowing if they were dead, or in fact would die. Of course, Zodiac's intention was to kill, not to maim. But he left them there to die an agonizing death, not knowing how long it would take, if in fact they did die. This, to me, signifies that he went "above and beyond" any brutality that was necessary to simply kill his intended victims.

"The Zodiac correspondences . . . indicate that the murders were perpetrated, at least in substantial part, for the sake of publicity through terror. That's the signature of a mass murderer, in my opinion."

Why can't "publicity through terror" be attributed to a serial killer's motive as well as that of a mass murderer's? If we, at this point, discount CJB as a Zodiac victim, Zodiac had still claimed three lives before he'd ever mailed his first letter on 7/31/69. That's almost seven and a half months following the LHR incident. Perhaps terrorizing the public was a part of his motive; after all, not all serial killers are motivated strictly by sexual sadism. In fact, sexual sadism doesn't have to be, in my opinion, a motivating factor at all. Furthermore, just because he sought the attention of the public -- which, by the way, could be motivated by some underlying need that may, or may not, be sexual in nature -- doesn't mean that his psychological disposition isn't closely akin to a serial killer's. In my mind, it simply means that his agenda was more convoluted than simply "killing people because it is so much fun." IMHO, it doesn't suggest that he wasn't a serial killer, but rather a serial killer who found additional pleasure in being recognized by the public; not unlike his British counterpart, Jack the Ripper.

Scott

Peter H, and all who are wondering along similar lines:

"So, if we can prove directly that there is no SDA link among any of the other victims, what possible point could there be in proving circumstantially that there was?"

Honestly folks, this whole SDA angle is something that I threw into the mix for the benefit of Tom F's argument. My true motive is to determine whether or not Zodiac can be characterized as a stalker or a troller because, if it can be shown that he stalked his victims, then a good argument can be made that he knew them as well. My assertion, from the beginning, has been that Zodiac was a troller, and therefore was motivated by a psychology that is closer to that of a serial killer's. Stating that there is no evidence to link the known victims only serves as a proof to the validity of my assertion.

Scott

Since this particular thread is getting way too long to load, here's the new thread to continue this discussion:

Did Zodiac Stalk His Victims Or Troll For Them? Part II