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

The other thread was getting way too long... let's continue the discussion here...

I'm currently rereading Unsinkable: The Full Story by Daniel Allen Butler (obviously about the Titanic), and on pages 146-147, I found something interesting that relates to our discussion concerning the possibility of Cecelia and Cheri Jo knowing each other because they were about the same age, from the same area and might have been murdered by the same man 3 years and 400+ miles apart:

... there was almost something idyllic about Edith Russell entertaining a little child in Boat 11 with her toy pig... or Lawrence Beesley tucking the end of a blanket around the toes of ten-month-old Alden Caldwell, only to discover the woman holding the child, Miss Hilda Slayter, and he had mutual friends in Clonmel, Ireland. (italics mine)

What are the odds that those two people, unknown to each other but who had mutual friends from the same town, should not only happen to find themselves on the same doomed passenger liner, but also in the very same lifeboat? Especially when we consider that out of 2,207 passengers and crew, 1,502 died and 705, less than one third, survived?

An interesting incident happened in 1985 when I was in tech school in Denver: my roommate had a rather unusual surname (as everyone seems to have in the military). One day, I was in line in the chow hall, and happened to be standing near a new student, when I noticed the name on his nametag was the same as my roommate (btw, I've never met anyone else with that surname, before or since). I made a silly comment like, "Gee, they're multiplying," and mentioned my roomie. The two met and got to talking soon after, and they turned out to be something like second or third cousins. Now, what are the odds that two cousins, with the same surname and who don't know each other, should enlist in the Air Force at about the same time and end up choosing the same career field and go to the same tech school at the same time? What are we to make of Cecelia and Cheri Jo?

Zynchronicity happens. They didn't know each other.

Ed,

"They didn't know each other."

I think you know that doesn't follow. BTW, did you know Bates had a boyfriend in SF?

And have you noticed how similar all the girl victims look? The one that looks a little out because her face is thinner is Shephard, but younger pictures of her show a rounder face.

And oh, BTW, I did not say anything that necessitated them knowing each other, only that they had a mutual acquaintance.

I'm compiling a statement of my hypothesis since I have been so misquoted and the discussion has been so chopped up. I actually have a rather concise idea and a desire for input on a couple of aspects of it.

Tom F

Scott,

Here's a quick one.

I really have to understand why you say that stalking and serial killing are mutually exclusive.

For example, in the Criminal Classification Manual under Sexual Sadist it says distinctly, “The victims are chosen through systematic stalking and surveillance.”

Tom F

Who knows Shepard's eye color? What was it?

With a wig, I bet Stine looked like Hartnell.

Tom F: I wasn't referring to your hypothesis that Z might have known both CJB and CAS, but to Sylvie's reference to people in Riverside speculating that they might have. And, btw, what I said was not a non sequitur; it did follow. I was pointing out that coincidences do happen, and I think that's all there was to both victims being from the same area and being murdered, apparently by the same man, separated by 3 years and 400+ miles in time and space. It was nothing more than coincidence, and my two examples demonstrate that it can happen, as unlikely as it can be at times.

As for Z knowing both victims, but who were unknown to each other: I still see no evidence to indicate any such thing other than speculation. At one point, after reading Graysmith and hearing what Pam had to say, I thought that Z knew all the early Z victims (assuming that Graysmith's list of victims were in fact Z victims), and that Z might have been eliminating them systematically to cover something up (such as the murder that Darlene supposedly observed her stalker commit).

However, in recent years, I've found the evidence for that theory to be sorely lacking, and so have rejected it in favor of the possibility that Z did not know any victims, but chose them at random while trolling, and killed them just to see if he could kill people and get away with it.

I agree with Ed.

Ed,

Not to argue, but it is a non sequitur to argue that since coincidences exist that any particular situation should be dismised as a coincidence. The most logical thing to say is that evoking Ocham's Razor, the simplest answer has the greater probability of being correct.

However, it is Ocham that for me, right now, keeps me from dismissing that Z knew and stalked.

Ed, Tom, anyone, do you believe that a holiday has anything to do with Z's personation of the crime?

Tom F

The Fife:

Come on: some speculative SDA connection is more likely than simple coincidence? Don't play around with Occam's Razor. You could get cut.
In the same way that its adherents often rely on a partial quote of the Second Amendment, reliance on a partial quote of the Razor is dangerous. The full quote is that the simpler explanation that accounts for all the facts is more likely correct. Application of the principle requires first indentifying just what you are trying to explain, then identifying all the facts that must be accounted for, then explaining how the proposed explanation accounts for all of the facts.
So your hypothesis is that Z knew all the victims. What is that supposed to explain? The phenomenon that Shepard and Bates once lived near each other? That LB looks like a stalking? What?
In any event, the set of relevant facts that must be accounted for includes the facts that: (1) Mike, Darlene, David and Betty Lou lived near each other but nowhere near any of the other victims (2) Paul Stine lived in another world altogether, (3) there is not the least scrap of evidence that there was anything but a geographic connection between any of the victims and each other or with the killer. (4)The only known SDA connection is Shepard's college enrollment. (5) The predominant signature of the crimes is publc terror. (6) The MO of the crimes includes more or less sudden appearance and hasty retreat, (within a range of the blitz style of LHR and BRS to the more leisured approach of LB and probably PH); (7) Police investigators have examined the lists of known acquaintances of all the victims and have not found a single match.* Add any other facts you think need to be accounted for.
Now, Occam's Razor asks, which is the simpler explanation: (1) Z didn't know any of them, and the Sheperd/Bates geography is coincidence; or (2) Z knew all of them (without being known by any of them) through some unidentified connection such as SDA and successfully stalked them all to their respective attack sites.
BTW, when calculating the likelihood of the Bates/Shepard coincidence, keep in mind that such coincidences not only happen, but are far more likely than they appear intuitively. Example: among any group of 20 randomly selected intividuals, does it seem more likely than not that two of them will have the same birthdate? The actual probability is significantly higher than 50 percent. Likewise, if we divide California up into some reasonable number of population centers of about 10 miles diameter (being about the size of the community the that Shepard and Bates lived in) What are the odds that among any number of randomly selected individuals, two of them will be from one of those centers? Say its 50 centers. That's a total of 1500 square miles. I would guess that something like 90 percent of the population of California lives within population centers totaling less than that. The odds of a match among seven individuals is 1/50 + 2/50 + 3/50 + 4/50 + 5/50 +6/50 = 21/50. That's 42 percent. Now, among all the possible coincidences (same birthday, last name, astrological sign, etc etc etc), the odds are pretty good that one or more coincidences like this will occur among the seven people. The fact that this one did is not in the least surprising. In fact, what is surprising is that there are not more.
So that's the basic case for no connection. One word. Coincidence. What's your case for stalking?




* I don't know this for a fact, but it should be a safe assumption. I its not, I have a suggestion for investigators . . .

Just a quick response to a few things as I am sooooo busy these days. I completely agree that Z could very possibly have stalked some but not all. If I may take Ted K. as an example. Some of his victims were clearly "stalked" (the bomb directed at a specific victim) and some were open for any and all to find as with the Berkely computer lab bomb that tore a totally unknown victims arm apart. There was a huge element to create terror with an act such as this that, say, a Gacy did not exhibit.
Why not Zodiac?
Just a note to Scott regarding H.L.Lucas. From all of the latest reports and findings that I have read, it is now widely believed by those in law enforcement and criminology that Lucas probably really only killed his mother, (and had specifically nothing at all to do with the "girl in the sock"). The rest of the "confessions" were just a bunch of babble. He simply does not have the mentality of either a serial killer or a mass murderer. These articles and the relating news programs are readily available on the internet I would assume. Respectfully,
I also have to disagree with one of your earlier posts in which you state that a stalked victim would necessarily know her stalker or know they were being stalked, simply not the case. I refer again to a case back East where a young woman named Amy was stalked night and day (it was determined later by the killer's diaries) and yet this bright, intelligent person, nor anyone in her family had the slightest idea. The victim had never spoken to her stalker in her life. But if anyone had ever done a google search on her name they would have found a sick, obsessed website devoted to her.
Ed et all, I do not know if Sheperd was stalked or trolled but let me say that I once dated a private det., who told me some of the tricks of undetected following. Ex. you do not follow directly behind but one or two cars behind. He explained how easy it is, (and how frightening and unrelenting the power of an obsessed stalker can be).

Peter H,
you are not just talking about two random victims but two Zodiac victims.
Note: I have heard, and this is a disclaimer, because it is simply something I have heard from several SDA members, just to say, for what it is worth that Z victim Mike Mageau is a SDA member.

Sylvie:

Yes? And? No matter how the sample is selected, the math is the same.

Peter,

I am very much aware of exactly what Ocham's Razor is. I am a physicist. I am intimate with statistics and I know quite well the birthday scenario. However, you have not stated my hypothesis. I have not stated my hypothesis publicly here. I was trying to start with the basic facts and no-one seemed to be listening.

It was precisely that all the elements of my hypothesis were not being answered that I said that Ocham’s Razor was keeping me from dismissing stalking. It was precisely because Ed seemed to have such a simple hypothesis in mind that I proposed him evoking it in his argument. Also, you have to be careful in what you do with statistics.

I have not actually stated my hypothesis, because of the way people seem to jump in on this board and derail a thought. For that reason, I tried breaking things up into direct questions and based on responses I was I either going to abandon my hypothesis or present it for real.

I have very seldom received an answer to a question asked. Instead people seem to try to interpret intent and attack some position I have not even taken.

I agree with you 100% that the explanation must answer the entire hypothesis. But we are not ready to present the hypothesis just yet.

Can I ask a numbered set of questions and see if we can gain any sort of consensus on the answers?

1 – What are the elements of Z’s personation to the crime? I am using the Crime Classification Manual’s definition. This is, paraphrased, what a perp does in committing a crime that is not necessary to the actual commitment. The refined constellation of his serial personations makes up his “signature.” If we cannot come to some sort of consensus on this short list, then all bets are off or at least we are fractured into well-defined camps.

2 – What was the crime at each of the attacks, but particularly at LB?

3 – Profiling dictates that we look at what the perp got out of the crime and not what the victim got out of it. Can we say anything about what the perp got out of each of the crimes -- particularly at LB?

I sincerely want to focus on these three questions. It would be wonderful to reach some sort of core consensus. Let’s leave our thirty years’ of luggage and our weapons at the door.

I have Ocham’s Razor in my hip pocket, but I am not ready to pull it out yet. I won’t be ready until we have some sort of critical mass among us ready.

Tom F

Sylvie wrote: "From all of the latest reports and findings that I have read, it is now widely believed by those in law enforcement and criminology that Lucas probably really only killed his mother, (and had specifically nothing at all to do with the "girl in the sock"). The rest of the "confessions" were just a bunch of babble. He simply does not have the mentality of either a serial killer or a mass murderer."

You'd better research Lucas a little further. Lucas was convicted of eleven homicides, including the murder of his common law wife, Becky Powell. Where the heck to you get your information? Do you just dream this crap up?

Additionally, "I do not know if Sheperd was stalked or trolled but let me say that I once dated a private det., who told me some of the tricks of undetected following."

This "private detective" was a real brain, wasn't he? I doubt he was even smart enough to be an actual police officer. My father is a retired Colorado State Patrolman, and served with the 5th Special Forces Group prior to his career in law enforcement. I've consulted him numerous times since becoming a member of this board, and I consulted him with regard to this stalking vs. trolling debate. Needless to say, he knows more about stalking and trolling than anybody on this board, with the exception of, perhaps, B. Baker. Anyway, he told me that, with the advent of the internet, stalking has become much more problematic than it was in years past. Now, he told me, it's very possible to stalk someone without them ever knowing it. However, in the late 60s, the exact opposite -- most of the time -- was true. In his words, "nine times out of ten, the victim of a stalker knew they were being stalked." Now, if you want to argue against that statement, keep in mind that you are not arguing against my words, but rather against a man who devoted his life to law enforcement. BTW, the only reason that I mentioned the fact that my father was a former "Green Beret" is because they did a heck of a lot of stalking of the enemy in Vietnam. The VC knew they were being stalked by Special Forces and Navy SEALs, and they were scared to death of them. FACT -- as Tom likes to say. Now, that doesn't necessarily carry over into the civilian world, but the aforementioned quote does. He cited three examples for me in which he was directly involved. In all three examples, a woman had been found murdered, and in each case the victim had complained of being stalked in the months prior to their murders. In two of the cases, the murderer was apprehended, and it was determined that the perp had been stalking the victims for months. In the third case, the killer was never apprehended, and the case remains open to this day.

Additionally, my mother had a friend that was murdered when I was about sixteen. She too had complained that she was being stalked by a former boyfriend. Following her murder, the ex-boyfriend was caught and convicted of murdering my mom's friend. I point these examples out for two reasons: 1)Because they involved, in some respect, members of my family directly, and 2)in all instances, except for the unsolved case, it was determined that the victims knew they were being stalked prior to their murders. This scenario, according to my father, is the norm, not the exception.

Scott

Sylvie,

Thanks for your remarks about victims not knowing about their stalkers. I sense a certain naïveté about stalking here. What you said is very true.

I have a friend that was stalked by a deranged woman who thought that God had told her that he was supposed to marry her. He had only met her casually once. He never caught on that she was stalking him until she caught him on a date with another woman. She came out of the woodwork threatening him then stormed off saying something about a “woman scorned.”

Then later she stalked him home one night (and this was after he knew she was stalking him and was leery and watchful) and surprised him by walking up to him and making some sort of comment about her not having a knife. Then she just strolled off.

It took a while but she got committed some place and things settled down.

I know another guy that dated a girl back around 1980. She called it off after maybe two dates and she thought that was it. I know both of them and so did I. About ten years later he comes up to her parents’ house and killed both of them. He went to several people related and killed them – even a baby. Then he got into a car to travel to a nearby town to kill her and her husband. The cops stopped him because someone saw him and reported he had been shouting her name. Now he is on death row. Anyway, it came out in testimony that over those ten years’ time he had been stalking her on a regular basis and had compiled a very complete diary on her. Get this: someone she knew stalked her for ten years, and she never realized it until it all spilled out at the trial. None of us that knew these people could believe what we were hearing. He was strange, but we never sensed this intensity. He never talked about her publicly. No-one had any idea.

So stalking is not necessarily heavy breathing on a phone or a shadow on the wall. Stalking is that shadow you don't see and that breathing you don't hear.

Tom F

Scott, Please do not get so defensive.
I really think YOU need to do some checking on HLL. Old wisdom: One of America's most prolific serial killers. New wisdom: The guy's I.Q. was so low it would have been most improbable for him to have done the killings attributed to him. Even John Walsh has ceded that while Otis Toole ( a buddy of Lucas') was most certainly the killer of young Adam, that Lucas was a serial wannabe who again probably only killed his mother. His stories were so full of holes, they reversed his death sentence (this in Texas, not known for being terribly lenient with C.P.) with the lead pros. saying he now believes Lucas was, aside from his mothers murder, quite harmless (matricide is a whole different category of killling). I am really sorry if you are not aware of all this but I reiterate the data on this is there to be gleaned.

P.S. Scott:
Again you are way off on the stalking issue.
How well do you think Rebecca Shaefer (the actress of My Sister Sam, who was shot in the face) knew her stalker??
How well did Theresa Saldana (of Raging Bull) know
the stalker that viciously slashed her?
Think. (And these cases were way before the internet.)
In the recent case of Amy, her shooting was initially thought by all to be an act of random violence.

Tom F. wrote: "And have you noticed how similar all the girl victims look? The one that looks a little out because her face is thinner is Shephard, but younger pictures of her show a rounder face."

It's not at all unusual for a serial killer to troll for a particular type of victim. Ever heard of Ted Bundy? If you read his case you'll discover that he trolled for his victims, not stalked them.

"I really have to understand why you say that stalking and serial killing are mutually exclusive.

For example, in the Criminal Classification Manual under Sexual Sadist it says distinctly, 'The victims are chosen through systematic stalking and surveillance.'"

A sexual sadist is not necessarily a serial killer. Furthermore, I have a few problems with the FBI's Crime Classification Manual. If their definition of a serial killer, for example, is to be taken at face value, then Leonard Lake and Charles Ng were not serial killers because they killed all of their victims in a single location. Now, would you argue that Lake and Ng were not serial killers? Additionally, would you argue that they stalked their victims through the classified ads, or trolled for them? BTW, a serial killer can troll a particular victim for a substantial period of time. It's not as if they troll for a victim and then necessarily murder them right away once they have been found.

Stalking and trolling are not even close to being in the same ballpark. In fact, they are not even the same "sport." There is a point when a serial killer begins to stalk his intended victim, but this is not until the victim has already been located during the trolling phase of his/her murder cycle. However, the definition of this type of stalking is entirely different than that attributed to a person who stalks a particular person for an extended period of time.

In answer to your first question -- "1 – What are the elements of Z’s personation to the crime?"

This is a somewhat difficult question, at least for me. But here are a few possibilities to consider:
A)The embroidered symbol on Zodiac's hood at LB is an example of personation.
B)The fact that, at least in the first three known Zodiac crimes, he attacked couples.
C)He took credit for the crimes via telephone calls and through writing (letters, the car door).

"2 – What was the crime at each of the attacks, but particularly at LB?" I'm not sure I know what you mean by this question. However, barring further explication, I'd have to say "murder."

I'm still thinking about your third question. It's difficult to know what psychological need was gratified for Zodiac, especially in light of the fact that we have no idea who Zodiac was. However, considering that his first three attacks were against couples, I feel pretty good about saying that the murders fulfilled some perverted psychological need of Zodiac's; more than likely, a sexual need.

Let's try to remember that, despite differences in opinion and interpretation, we are all striving for the same goal: to resolve this unsolved murder case. I'm trying my best to remain open minded.

Scott

Sylvie: Henry Lee Lucas was convicted of eleven homicides. What is so difficult to understand about that? I'm not being defensive; I'm stating facts. There's no doubt that he was exaggerating his total of victims. However, he did kill his common law wife, Becky Powell, and was connected to ten other murders for which he was convicted. Again, where do you come up with this crap?

Additionally, you and Tom F are pointing to examples of stalking that are outside of the norm. I never said that all victims of stalkers knew they were being stalked. What I said was, the greater percentage of victims know they are being stalked.

If you, and anyone else who believes that Zodiac stalked his victims, are so sure of it, then cut the bull and start citing facts. This half-assed speculation crap is becoming extremely tedious. I'll admit that I am also guilty of speculative reasoning at times, but this "I knew, he knew, they knew, she knew" stuff has little bearing on the Zodiac case. Serial killers are not all cast in the same mold, and Zodiac certainly seems to go against the grain more than others.

So, having said that, were are the facts that would lead anyone to conclude that Zodiac stalked his victims? It's really that simple, folks. Furthermore, with all of the cases of stalking that are cited above, allow me to ask this: In how many of these instances did said stalker, after killing/attacking his victim, go on to stalk then kill a second, third, fourth, or twenty third victim? Show me some examples and I'll start to bend. Otherwise, Tom V is right, we really are wasting time with idle speculation.

Scott

Ps. Lucas' commute from death row to life imprisonment was not because there is doubt regarding his eleven counts of murder. I'll let you figure out why, since you seem to know so much about it.

Tom F: to invoke Occam's Razor, I would have to say that the simplest explanation for all of the facts is that Z didn't know any of the victims. As far as an SDA connection goes, there is none. BLJ was a Christian Scientist ("Jealousy Motive Checked," (Vallejo News-Chronicle, 12-23-1968, p.1). And wasn't Stine Jewish? But he was apparently Unitarian, as according to his obituary (San Francisco Chronicle, 10-14-1969, p. 36), the funeral services were held at the First Unitarian Church at 1187 Franklin Street in San Francisco. I don't know about David Faraday or Darlene Ferrin, however. But two were not SDA's, so that cannot be a connection.

Sylvie: to bring Theresa Saldana and Rebecca Shaefer into the argument is not a good example. You're talking apples and oranges here. They were both Hollyweird celebrities, and as such, were in movies/TV programs that were seen by millions of people who did not know them personally. As far as Jane Q. Public goes, she's known by perhaps dozens of people personally. The stalking is the same, but the circumstances are different.

I also watched something some months back about a case in which a mildly retarded (oops, not PC! lol) man murdered several young girls, one of which was his next-door neighbor. I don't recall all the details, except that he was not suspected initially until many years and a few murders later, because the victim's father's testimony about when he last saw her indicated that the killer couldn't have done it, but it turned out that he was mistaken about the time. As far as Henry Lee Lucas goes, intelligence therefore is not a requirement for murder. He might have been convicted of 11 murders, but I really wouldn't be surprised if he really did kill 200-300 people over 17 years, as his original confession would seem to indicate...

Scott,

Consider this. If you are being stalked and you discover this, then you are a data point to prove your point. If you are being stalked and never discover it and are killed, then unless the killer is caught and admits to the stalking you are a data point for "random" killing and again "proving" your point. It's a stacked deck.

You have to be careful about how data is being collected/ how it can be collected and what you make of it.

There is in this scenario a natural bias in the data toward the stalked knowing simply because they knew and lived long enough to tell. How in the world do you count the stalked that don't know? You are trying to generalize this and I don't necessarily buy that one. At least not all of it.

Tom F

Fife:


You wrote:

"I sincerely want to focus on these three questions. It would be wonderful to reach some sort of core consensus. Let’s leave our thirty years’ of luggage and our weapons at the door.

I have Ocham’s Razor in my hip pocket, but I am not ready to pull it out yet. I won’t be ready until we have some sort of critical mass among us ready.


Very cool. I am ready to play. Sorry if I jumped the gun, but I honestly thought your hypothesis was that Z knew who his victims were through some connection like SDA, and that explained the Bates/Shepard/Riverside coincidence. OK. Let's go back to your questions.

1 – What are the elements of Z’s personation to the crime? I am using the Crime Classification Manual’s definition. This is, paraphrased, what a perp does in committing a crime that is not necessary to the actual commitment. The refined constellation of his serial personations makes up his “signature.” If we cannot come to some sort of consensus on this short list, then all bets are off or at least we are fractured into well-defined camps.

Personation: Choice of couples. This could be MO if it was done for tactical reasons, such as vulnerability. Phone calls . Letters. Z-sign and name. The codes. At LB: the decoration on the hood, maybe the hood itself; the approach, the conversation, maybe the bondage, although again, this may be MO; the writng on the car, the phone call. At PH, perhaps the approach, perhaps converstaion during the ride, the bloody shirt.

Signature: Not one element of personation -- including the letters -- except the Z sign applies to all the crimes. Next most repeated trait is letters and "Zodiac" name. That's my short list on signature. Everything else -- phone calls, LB variations -- seems of lesser importance and probably does not amount to signature. Maybe the codes. Maybe Stines shirt. Only happened once, but clearly intended to claim the crime. Maybe proximity to water, but I think this is coincidental.

2 – What was the crime at each of the attacks, but particularly at LB?

Common law definitions or you want the whole Cal Crim Code?

LHR: Assualt, battery, two counts murder, probably first degree (intent to kill, premeditated, with malice aforethought, you name it), plus assorted ADW, assault with intent, etc.

BRS: Exactly the same, except only one murder.

LB: The same as BRS. (Elements of first degree may be different (involving torture)). Plus false imprisonment (tying up) possibly torture (repeated stabbing) California may have had a public disguise statute at the time. Trespass to personal property, vandalism, for defacing the car. SO why "particularly at LB"? The crimes were virtually the same. The only added felonies were the false imprisonment. Only MO and personation varied.

PH: Assault, battery, murder one, larceny, robbery, vandalism.


3 – Profiling dictates that we look at what the perp got out of the crime and not what the victim got out of it. Can we say anything about what the perp got out of each of the crimes -- particularly at LB?

LHR: The Kill. Public terror through later call and letters.

BRS: Same.

LB: The same plus intimate confrontation with the victims.

PH. Same as LB.

All: Public terror. Got away with murder.

Ed,

"to invoke Occam's Razor, I would have to say that the simplest explanation for all of the facts is that Z didn't know any of the victims."

You obviously have a smaller list of facts to Ockhamize. I am concerned about a broader array of facts that I think are all a part of the personation.

Again, I am trying to come to a consensus on some issues here. I feel like everyone is trying to second guess my questions.

"As far as an SDA connection goes, there is none"

What connection do you think I am after? You seem to think that I am trying to say that all these murders have an SDA connection. I am not in any manner even suggesting that. The only connection I was stating was that IF Z was stalking them, then I would presume he knew they were SDA.

If that breaks all laws of logic, then please tell me

Ed, I really would like to see your input on those three questions I posed. I want to understand the collective understand better.

Thanks,

Tom F

Tom F:

You can short cut your three question survey instrument by going back to the "signature" thread. I think there was plenty of discussion there to give you a sense of the Senate, if not consensus. Or you can just use my short list, which is about where I think any consensus on personation would come out.

Peter,

I went searching for a "signature" thread and didn't find one. It must be under some other heading. Do you recall what that was?

Thanks,

Tom F

Tom F
Oh, yes. That may have been on the unrestricted topic area that Tom V. 86'd a couple of weeks ago. Sorry about that. Looks like you had no choice but to start from scratch. BTW; you seem to be focusing on LB quite a bit in teeing up your thesis. While you are waiting for a consensus on personation, would you be interested in applying Occam's razor to the LB problem? By that, I mean the various explanations for the variations in personation and MO at LB. I won't repeat the argument here for fear of raising the ire of those who have already heard it, but why don't you go to the Lake Berryessa threads and hit me backchannel with your thoughts? Much of what has been said about "LB in particular" was said at that thread. What does Occam tell us about the LB variations?

Scott, by your choice of language, let me say a gentleman and a scholar you are not. If you need to resort to foul language--- you are on the defense. And no it is not French!!!
We'll just agree to disagree on HLL but I implore you to lose the ego and get informed,
let's drop it at that.

Tom F: I don't know what connection you're suggesting. The one you did suggest, that is, the SDA connection, doesn't hold water as far as I can tell. And so I commented on that.

I'm not sure what broader array of facts that you're dealing with. All I know is that, after 8 1/2 years of studying this case, I've yet to see anything concrete about any connections between Z and his victims, or all of the victims themselves.

As far as your questions:

1 – What are the elements of Z’s personation to the crime? I am using the Crime Classification Manual’s definition. This is, paraphrased, what a perp does in committing a crime that is not necessary to the actual commitment. The refined constellation of his serial personations makes up his “signature.” If we cannot come to some sort of consensus on this short list, then all bets are off or at least we are fractured into well-defined camps.

Signature victims are couples (choosing a couple was not necessary, he could've picked single people like he claimed he would in the first three-part letter); phone calls afterwards claiming credit; writing letters to claim credit and generate fear; encrypting messages. None of these things were necessary to commit any of his crimes. If we want to get into it a little more: blitz-style attacks; leaving the area immediately; leaving victims in the open to be found by the next passerby. All could be considered "personation" or "signature," especially when we consider other serial killers, mass murderers, etc, such as Gacy, Dahmer and Corll, but may also arguably be considered MO instead.

2 – What was the crime at each of the attacks, but particularly at LB?

I assume you mean murder and attempted murder. I don't have a copy of any criminal codes, so I won't attempt go into it like Peter H. did.

3 – Profiling dictates that we look at what the perp got out of the crime and not what the victim got out of it. Can we say anything about what the perp got out of each of the crimes -- particularly at LB?

Impossible to say without knowing who Z was. He certainly got some amount of satisfaction from the crimes, but just what need they satisfied is unknown at this point. Personally, I think he got off knowing that he could commit several murders and get away with it, and he also got off on the fear and attention he generated through his crimes.

It would be nice to see what theory you're beating around the bush about.

Ed:
"I don't know what connection you're suggesting. The one you did suggest, that is, the SDA connection, doesn't hold water as far as I can tell. And so I commented on that."

I just re-read all my postings and I didn't make any so-called SDA connection statement anything like you commented on. You must be confusing me with someone else.

Tom F

Tom F: you're right. It was Scott who did:

By Scott Bullock on Monday, July 16, 2001 - 10:56 am:

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. (italics mine)

and he continued:

By Scott Bullock on Monday, July 16, 2001 - 01:23 pm:

Honestly folks, this whole SDA angle is something that I threw into the mix for the benefit of Tom F's argument. (italics mine) 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.

Oops. After reading so many posts (some in the wee hours), I thought it was you (they do kinda run into each other after a while, especially when we start quoting each other). In any case, regardless of who originated it, I have yet to see something concrete linking all known victims (obviously except for those who were attacked together). I just thought it was interesting that Graysmith first opined a connection between Z and Darlene, and went on to claim that she knew DAF, BLJ and even CAS. Pam claimed Darlene knew CJB and Stine as well. In this thread, it went to a possible connection between CJB, CAS and Z...

Sorry gentlemen, but I beg to differ. Observe the following post written by Tom F in the "car Door" thread:

"Were Shepard and Harnell Jewish?

It is recorded that they went to worship on Saturday morning 27 Sep 69.
This day was Sukkot [Feast of Tabernacles]
This holiday officially ends at sundown.

What holiday was he killing on? Sukkot? Was he killing Jews on a Jewish holiday?

This begs two issues:
Was this the reason for him to want to get it done and record a time before sundown? While it was still the holiday?
Also, does this show that he really did know all of his victims?"

It was this train of thought that eventually led to the SDA angle. Just for the record.

Scott

Additionally, in the same thread, Tom F wrote:

"I don't know if you caught the fact that I dropped the Jewish angle and kept the Seventh Day Adventist.

Also, I in no wise consider Hartnell as knowing the perp, but Shepard. And it might not be so much that she knew him as he knew her. You know how un-requited love is . . .

You must remember that she was from the Riverside area. If we are still keeping alive the coal that Z was the killer in the Bates killing, then how can we ignore these coincidences . . .

Right now I think so many personal theories seem to focus on 6:30. I agree that this is a singular clue. But also right now I am extremely keen to investigating this SDA connection . . .

Like I said, if this is true or likely, then we are talking about stalking and not trolling -- that the victims were not accidents. These are two different animals. And it makes all the difference in the world in how we look at the evidence."

Now, Tom F, do you remember having said these things, or do I need to find some more of your posts to quote from? Believe me . . . I had nothing to do with the genesis of the "SDA" angle.


Sylvie wrote: "Scott, by your choice of language, let me say a gentleman and a scholar you are not. If you need to resort to foul language--- you are on the defense. And no it is not French!!!
We'll just agree to disagree on HLL but I implore you to lose the ego and get informed,
let's drop it at that."

Your right Sylvie. Judging from my use of the words "ass" and "crap" I'm surprised that everyone here doesn't think I'm a regular Andrew Dice Clay. Secondly, there is no need to "agree to disagree." One simply cannot (well, I suppose you can) dispute the facts. H.L.L. was convicted of ten* homicides, except, that is, in your world.

*I pulled the original figure of eleven out of Dr. Joel Norris' book, Serial Killers. However, authors Harold Schechter, The A to Z Encyclopedia of Serial Killers and Michael Newton, The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers, both state that H.L.L. was convicted of ten homicides. Either way, it certainly wasn't one as Sylvie seemed to be suggesting.

Okay, I'm done with the H. Lucas thing. Back to stalking vs. trolling . . .

Scott

Scott,

If you think what I said back on the door thread has anything at all to do with what you criticized and are raging about, then you need to take logic 101, 102 and 103 all over again.

I'll say it one more time.

I was never worried about connecting people together via SDA. I was only posing that if Z knew his (female) victim at LB then he probably knew she was SDA.

It's because of this idea bouncing around inside of your head and onto the page that I have been so frustrated in trying to express what I REALLY want to say.

Responding to you on this stupid issue is wasting bandwidth for all of us.

Tom F

Scott, you still don't get it (sigh), NOONE said he was not convicted...blah, blah, blah--I said the lates articles I have read are implying that maybe, just maybe he did NOT commit the over 600 homicides he confessed to. He is being regarded now, by many, as very probably the world's biggest liar. I've read, I've watched the recent televised shows on this, I listened to the so called experts and I have come to my own opinion. What I don't have a right to that?? Conviction and reality are as we all know not always the same thing -- HELLO--
now did he really kill the over 600 he said?? How in the world would I know-- I wasn't there, were you?? So this is really stupid -- who you are arguing with is not me but these individuals who have come to these conclusions. WHEW!!!
Now if your point is that I am creating the fact that I've read these articles, etc. Give me a break! Like I have nothing better to do than make up false readings of false stories. PULeese!!! As far as your venacular goes, you missed the point there as well, I do not know your level of intelligence but I think your choice of language shows a misogynistic disrespect and a lack of class. I raise my sons better.
Ed, quickly, as soon as I wrote of the celebrity stalking victims I knew someone would immediately
say well, yeah but that's different because they are famous and so on. And like clockwork you did.
I simply brought them up because while the victims may lead very different lifestyles, I believe from the stalking side of it the elements are quite the same, an imagined need to be together, "if I can't have you noone can" or in the case of John Lennon an over identification with the victim".
You made a very interesting comment about Pam claiming her sister knew Cheri Jo and Stine. Was that given much creedence? I mean I would know who my sister was aquainted with or not, was this thoroughly investigated? BTW I thought Sandy made a fascinating suggestion in a prior post about about the possibility of killing a targeted Stine for his i.d. and the Mexican drug connection.

Tom F,

First you write, "This is a quote from the Seventh Day Adventist web site.

"Time Frame of the Sabbath. Biblical Data: The Sabbath starts at the end of the sixth day of the week and lasts one day, from evening to evening (Gen 1; Mark 1:32). This time coincides with the time of sunset. Wherever a clear delineation of the time of sunset is difficult to ascertain, the Sabbath keeper will begin the Sabbath at the end of the day as marked by the diminishing light."

I think we might be onto something here, if we want to pursue the idea that Z knew his victims in some manner and it was more like stalking than trolling."

Then you basically deny it by writing, "I was never worried about connecting people together via SDA. I was only posing that if Z knew his (female) victim at LB then he probably knew she was SDA."

Looks to me as though you are the one wasting bandwidth by making statements that, at best, are fragmented and disjointed, not to mention blatantly contradictory. It certainly doesn't require a logic refresher course to see that. Furthermore, do not blame me for your inability to "express what (you) REALLY want to say." Nobody is holding you back, other than yourself.

Sylvie, you wrote: "From all of the latest reports and findings that I have read, it is now widely believed by those in law enforcement and criminology that Lucas probably really only killed his mother . . ."

This was the statement that I was arguing against by citing the multiple murder convictions. I agree with you that his boasts of 600+ victims are ridiculous. Let's put it to rest, okay?

However, I'm at a total loss as to how you can characterize using the words "c***" and "a**" as being "misogynistic." "Lack of class"? Maybe. But misogynistic? One can only hope that you are raising your sons to properly define words, and use them correctly in sentences. BTW, you've been known to shoot off at the mouth from time to time; using all kinds of derisive and derogatory language. So don't play that "holier-than-thou" b.s. with me.

Having said these things, I will no longer address any posts that do not pertain to this thread. (I promise Tom V. In fact, I apologize for having to go off topic in the first place.)

Scott

Scott,

You really need to seek professional help. I am not kidding. I sincerely think you have a problem.

Making a connection to SDA has nothing in the world to do with making connections between people.

You are the type of person that twiddles with minutiae of your own creation just so you can sound to the uninitiated like an expert or one having some sort of astute prowess.

I have not been inconsistent. I have progressed along a course that I intend to still follow regardless of inane distractions from you.

Tom F

All,

It might have become lost in the shuffle, but I wanted to make sure that everyone understood that I am taking Peter's recommendation and reading through the Lake Berryessa material that he pointed out to keep from re-covering any old ground here. I'll be back with a refinement of where I was going and I hope that this with some well-posed questions and discussion will get us somewhere.

Thanks,

Tom F

Tom F,

What the heck are you talking about? I thought you were putting forth the assertion that Z knew his victims via the SDA? Or, are you trying to say Zodiac knew that his victims, specifically CAS and CJB, were members of the SDA and that is why he attacked them, regardless if he/they were actually acquainted with one another? Or, none of the above? I admit, the context is apparently lost to me. Does that mean I should be insulted?

I assure you that my intentions are not meant to be hostile. Just because I'm not correctly interpreting the whole SDA thing does not mean that I'm in need of professional help. But think what you'd like, it's a free country.

It's ironic that you'd say, "You are the type of person that twiddles with minutiae of your own creation just so you can sound to the uninitiated like an expert or one having some sort of astute prowess", because that is exactly what I am thinking about you. Your posts are reeking of amateurism, contradiction, banality, and uninspired, cloudy thought. You talk about being a man of science who requires "cold, hard facts" and yet, thus far, we've yet to see anything of the kind coming from you. That's just my opinion, which, like you, I'm entitled to have.

Scott

Scott,

"I thought you were putting forth the assertion that Z knew his victims via the SDA?"

No. It never was that. I was never even close to saying that.

"Or, are you trying to say Zodiac knew that his victims, specifically CAS and CJB, were members of the SDA and that is why he attacked them"

Only that if he had known someone, that it is reasonable to presume he could have known something like being SDA. No causality in motive is implied based on religion. No reciprocity of acquaintance was implied.

"…the context is apparently lost to me."

This is obvious. I have had several e-mails off-line telling me that they had no problem in understanding what I had said, but that your leaps to conclusion were the source of confusion. I believe the contradictions and cloudy thoughts are between your ears and not between us.

As I said, I’ll be back in a while with what I am pulling together.

Tom F

Sorry Tom V, I went back on my word. But I feel I was provoked by The Fife's remarks. IMHO, his words are backed with nothing more than that of an egotistical braggart's. He's a narcissist that is beneath contempt, who is sorely in need of a lesson in message board etiquette. Okay, I'm over it. I'll just sit back and wait to see what Wonder Boy has in store for us, especially if it is so compelling that he felt the need to post as to the nature of his absence.

Scott

OK, let's finish with all the petty bickering...

Sylvie: I did mention in my comparison between celebs and regular folks being stalked by saying, "The stalking is the same, but the circumstances are different."

As far as Darlene knowing Stine and CJB goes, Pam has made the claim (as I recall) that Darlene met Cheri Jo in ca. 1965 while the choir she sang with went to Riverside, and spoke about her when she returned to Vallejo. She also claimed that Darlene knew a cab driver while she lived in San Francisco who used to drive her wherever she wanted. That could not possibly have been Stine, because (according to his death certificate) he did not start working for Yellow Cab until August 1969, a month after Z murdered her. I don't know if either claim has ever been seriously investigated (certainly not the latter one anyway).

I've been away for three days, so I've just finished reading this current thread for the last couple of days. I've never seen so much boring dialogue since this Board was created by Tom V. It should now be called the BORED.
You people are really ripping each other. Although, I'm rooting for Scott Bullock- because I get a sense that others are ganging up on him.
Just because two combatants are having a free-for-all, that shouldn't be THE incentive to jump in and RIP one of them.
Bruce D.

Another thought about all the theories on who Z is, why he did what he did,etc,.etc. I've way'ed in with various theories of my own since the inception of this Board AND THE GREAT THING ABOUT THEORIES AND/OR OPINIONS IS THAT THEY ARE LIKE ARMPITS -WE ALL HAVE THEM-AND YOU KNOW WHAT- WE ARE ALL IDENTICAL SIBLINGS BECAUSE WE ARE ALL BATTING .000- Z HAS STILL NEVER BEEN IDENTIFIED DESPITE THE "GREAT MINDS!!" THAVERSING THIS BOARD.

TRAVERSING-"notTHAVERSING

Bruce D:

Your words sparkle with wisdom. I believe that Tom F and I have come to a truce, at least with regard to the handling of posts on the message board.

Scott

Sandy, Thanx for that info. I find your analysis very interesting. I just reread the Darlene section of Graysmith's book, it's too bad more is not written about DF's first husband. He sounds like a shady individual at the very least. Your multiple Z theory would make some sense as to why the identity of Z is so hard to determine.
Ed, I've got a good deal of respect for your research and knowledge on Zodiac. In your 7/17 post you say that you've come to the conclusion that Z did not know any of his victims. It sure seems to me that by Graysmith's account a Darlene--Z would be probable, esp. in light of the phone calls directly after her death, the phone call to VPD placed where is was. There are so many mysteries in the DF/MM shooting that it is like a riddle within an enigma. The unknown sources of income, the strange, weel-dressed older man with glasses that she feared, the babysitter feeling the home was being stalked, MM's conflicting testimony, MM's totally bizarre choice of clothing that night, etc. I include this in this section only because it appears she was being stalked and yes by someone she knew (in some fashion). But you believe it was indeed random trolling?
You have also said in prior posts that I've read, you do not think any of the suspects are Z, do you give any creedence to a multiple z theory as in Sandy's analysis? So then, do you opine, like Jake has posted that Z is most likely an as yet unknown perp?

Ed:

Thanks for providing us with some stability. One question about Stines work history. The death certificate apparently listed only present occupation. Any indication of what he did before signing on with Yellow? Does it seem likely that a top cab company like Yellow would have hired a rookie? Might he have driven as a gypsie or for another company before that time, when Darlene could have known him?
Not that I believe for one second that Z knew any of his victims or that any (other than the couples, obviously) knew each other, but as long as its under discussion . . .

Tom F. wrote: "I have had several e-mails off-line telling me that they had no problem in understanding what I had said, but that your leaps to conclusion were the source of confusion.

Okay, I can see that now. So, in an attempt to put this thread back on course, let me state, for the record, exactly what my assertions are, have been, and continue to be:

1. Zodiac was a serial killer, not a mass murderer.

2. Zodiac trolled for his victims, not stalked them.

3. Because Zodiac trolled for his victims, chances are he didn't know any of them and, conversely, none of the victims knew him.

4. If Zodiac didn't know them, then he would have no way of knowing what their religious preferences were, SDA or otherwise.

5. Because Zodiac trolled for his victims, all of the known murders were random acts perpretrated against random victims.

Also, I falsely, but unintentionally, asserted that the "SDA" angle was being used by Tom F. to help demonstrate that Zodiac knew his victims. Obviously, that was not the case, and I apologize for having lept to this conclusion.

I hope this clears things up a bit with regard to my position on this issue.

Scott

Sylvie: Graysmith had to have some sort of angle for Zodiac to sell, and the possibility of one victim knowing his true identity would seem to be it. What we know for certain is that Darlene was stalked, of that I have no doubt, but the thing that gets me is that there were so many men who bore a strong resemblance to Z (from the SF composite and eyewitness descriptions), "Walker" and Marshall especially. That tells me that just because someone who stalked her might have fit Z's description, does not automatically mean that he must be Z. If that look was not so common, I'd be inclined to agree that Z was her stalker. Other than Graysmith's claims, however, I've not seen anything concrete, so I must conclude that hers was indeed a random murder. The only one who knew for sure was Darlene, and unfortunately, she couldn't be bothered to tell anyone any details about her stalker except that he supposedly murdered someone.

I'm pretty neutral as to who I think Z was; I've stated before that I prefer to look at suspects as to whether they are more or less likely. Allen, for instance, was in all the right places at the right times, and while Kaczinsky was not, he seems to have a similar psychology to Z. Peter O. looks very similar to Z and has a similar background (gleaned from the letters, etc), while the SF businessman is a dead ringer for the composite. So, it's difficult to emphatically state that "So-and-so must be Z because..." This case is very similar to Jack the Ripper in that regard.

Peter: The death certificate just states his profession at the time of death, and length of time in that profession. He's listed in Polk's as being a businessman, but that's a pretty broad term. Sandy informs me that Stine was an insurance salesman (I believe that's what she told me... Sandy?) before he drove a cab.

EdN:

"Profession" or "Occupation" or "Employment" Forgive the apparent hairsplitting, but there is a difference, and I doubt that a death certificate would use the term "Profession". Not everyone has one, but we all have occupations while only some of us have employers. If employment by Yellow was listed, then I would surmise that the information says nothing about employment or occupation before the date of employment by Yellow. Which leaves the possibility that his "Occupation" just prior to "employment" by Yellow was also cab driver.

Ed, What about Cheri Jo? You must agree that she was most certainly being "stalked". She had been followed to the library, watched as she entered, had her car immobiliZed and was waited for upon her exit. Sure sounds like a stalking situation.
But you feel that it was "random"? With Darlene as she WAS indeed being stalked, as you believe, then turns up murdered at that time, hmmmm, isn't there a huge probability that her stalker was the killer? I know that Graysmith took some liberties but I think direct quotes have to accurate (don't they?), Janet, the babysitter, said that Darlene did not even leave until about midnight, then within 10 minutes later, she's killed. Would make sense if it was the stalker.
It was interesting what you said about different suspects. I believe the one set of prints they do not have is the SF businessman. What always makes me laugh with many of the posts on the board is that when the suspect is not the preferred one we'll hear "well the prints and handwrinting obviously don't match", but when the poster likes Allen for ex. it is always "well, you know, the prints don't really mean anything (he could have brought a hand along), the handwriting doesn't matter because he was ambidextrous". I suspect that Z knew he'd blown it, he'd been seen and didn't wipe all the prints, hence his disguise letter.
BTW, you forgot to mention Bruce Davis, he was also in all the right places at the right times, and had the occult connections (which many folks like to gloss over but was nonetheless a huge part of the Z persona). I find him a much stronger candidate than Allen. I have a problem with Allen hanging out at the races, then making his way over to RCC to kill CJB. It seems improbable. At any rate a simple test will tell. Hope it comes soon. I'd pay for it if they'd just do it.
BTW remember when I said a while back that I know the French and they WILL send Einhorn back. La Viola!!

All,

I am coming up to a semantics wall and think it would be good form to come to terms with the terms stalk and troll.

I think that we can safely say that 99% of serial killers probably started out in trolling for a victim. I am thinking that the point of discussion here then is whether we are claiming a period of stalking after the victim was chosen.

For the purposes here are we implying that those in the trolling corner are going to agree that any stalking, if any at all, took place within the few minutes between selection and execution? How long do you trollers think that the time can get between picking and killing before it becomes stalking?

And I would also presume that the stalking corner would insist that the stalking would have to be carried out over some length of time to be truly stalking. How long do you stalkers think we are talking about here. As little as a day or do we want to make it substantially longer or shorter than that?

If it were only as long as an hour it could make quite a difference in the execution of the crime and its dénouement.

As a final note, do you feel the goal of the discussion is to come to some possible closure on his killing execution or on his mental and psychological state or needs?

Any refinement of my remarks?

Thanks,

Tom F

Fife, I agree that we're running into a semantics wall. Until we can agree on the meanings of certain terms, like "signature," and "personation," and "torture," and "stalking," we're not going to get too far.

The same kind of problem occurs with a term such as "premeditation." Obviously every murder is "premeditated" to a certain degree, even if it's only in the split instant between the time an impulsive thought is conceived and its actual execution. I believe that the term "stalking," as it's usually conceived, applies to intentions that are thought out long in advance of any actions that they predate. Once a "troller" singles out his victim, he might, as a matter of semantics, be said to engage in "stalking," up to the point where he confronts that victim. That doesn't make him a "stalker," in the sense of someone who is out to get a particular individual, no more than committing a series of killings makes a person a "serial killer."

Douglas,

Yes, I think that if we start off with our eyes open on this semantics issue, we can avoid a heck of a lot of needless tail-chasing later.

I feel comfortable in the definition of personation as those touches added to a crime by the perp that were not needed in the commission. But the problems arise in the execution of the definition to a specific crime, i.e. not MO. Motive helps to define what was necessary and what was added, as does knowing and understanding the victim and just what the intended crime was. Then as you move from peronation to signature I feel that it gets softer and harder to define unless it's a really obvious calling card sort of thing.

Thanks for helping us to come to terms here.

Tom F

PS
Does anyone see other semantics issues that we could try to clear up while we're at it? Perhaps Tom could add a glossary page to the web?

Assuming the point of the discussion is to come
to some possible closure on his killing execution
or on his mental or psychological state or needs.
We have a 50% chance of being correct in deciding
stalk or troll. A guess as is good as it gets.
If we were professionals our guess be it wrong or right would determine dismissals from the suspect list. In practicality this has about as much effectiveness as a 900 call to Miss Cleo renowned
taro card reader.

Tom F: "For the purposes here are we implying that those in the trolling corner are going to agree that any stalking, if any at all, took place within the few minutes between selection and execution? How long do you trollers think that the time can get between picking and killing before it becomes stalking?

I believe that, in the case of Zodiac, he may have trolled a particular area until the right moment presented itself; a "kill box" of sorts. In other words, at Lake Herman Road, for example, Zodiac, IMHO, didn't follow a couple to the location. Instead, he waited for the "right victims" to enter an already predetermined area before making his move. In Z's case, he "stalked" for a very brief period of time, but trolled for hour after hour.

Doug wrote: "Once a "troller" singles out his victim, he might, as a matter of semantics, be said to engage in "stalking," up to the point where he confronts that victim. That doesn't make him a "stalker," in the sense of someone who is out to get a particular individual, no more than committing a series of killings makes a person a "serial killer."


I agree with this statement, basically to the letter.

"Motive helps to define what was necessary and what was added, as does knowing and understanding the victim and just what the intended crime was."

If, by motive, you are referring too criminal intent and as to why the crime was committed (ie, for money, for blood lust, because "God told them too, rape, etc.), then yes you are right. I'm interpreting this as a distinction between MO, because that which is necessary to successfully execute a crime (MO) is different than why the crime was committed (Motive). Am I interpreting this correctly? Because, if not, we still have a semantics issue to contend with.

Scott

BTW, I also concur with Doug's other statement, in which he wrote:

"I believe that the term "stalking," as it's usually conceived, applies to intentions that are thought out long in advance of any actions that they predate."

Scott

Scott,

I was getting at the idea that behavior assignment between MO and personation is more properly done if you know the intended crime.

Let's say I wear a mask like Z and carry a gun to scare a friend. In the process I accidentally kill him.

The motive and what was MO in once case might become personation in the other. I needed the mask to scare, but if my motive was to kill I didn't necessarily need a mask.

Does that rhyme with your thoughts?

Tom F

If we take the definition of Doug, then what went on with CJB would definitely go under the "stalking" definition, I believe, esp. if you consider the "Miss Bates" letter, what with the brush-off's etc., also what Darlene was going through was, as Ed has stated indeed stalking, though whether the stalker was actually her killer is not sure.

Tom F:

Yes, it does "rhyme" with my thoughts. A mask, if one's intention was murder, could be characterized as MO if it's reasonable to conclude that the mask was intended to conceal identity. But yes, I believe I'm following your drift. It isn't necessarily MO, particularly if it can be demonstrated that the murderer didn't need it to successfully commit the crime. If this is the case, then the mask could be attributed to personation rather than MO.

That is what your saying, right?

Sylvie wrote: "though whether the stalker was actually her killer is not sure."

IMHO, I believe the same can be said for CJB as well as for Darlene.

Scott

Some additional thoughts:

Regardless of motive, if it (the mask) wasn't needed to successfully commit the crime, then it would reflect upon the perpetrator's personation. However, it could also be characterized as signature. Why?

If we use Lake Berryessa as an example, IMHO, the Zodiac's hood served all 3 functions: 1) It concealed his identity - MO. 2) Because it bore an emblem, it also demonstrates personation. 3) However, if both victims had died, but an eyewitness saw Zodiac leaving the scene, then the hood would be serving two simultaneous functions: MO and signature. (Such is the case with Hartnell.)

MO for reasons already stated, and signature because, like the letters and the note on the car door, it authenticates LB as a Zodiac crime, just like the phone calls and letters did for every other murder.

Are we still on course?

Scott

The bottom line is that it's difficult to assess modus operandi and signature without understanding the perpetrator's state of mind. A killer might inflict a particular type of injury out of rage or vengeance, while another might inflict an identical injury because he finds the act to be directly stimulating. This is why we have to carefully analyze the circumstances unique to each particular crime and not allow semantics to cloud the issue. If distinct patterns of victimology, M.O. or signature are present, they ought to be taken into account.

While not sure about Darlene,I think CJB was definitely stalked.I fully agree that Zodiac trolled particular areas.It becomes very significant if we believe Zodiac was familiar with these areas,especially in relation to the major suspects.Maybe we could discuss things from that angle!.
I agree with Sylvie about Allen at Riverside.
However there's nothing to rule him out elswhere.The fact that I believe the above is inclined to steer me away from TK.The door is still open for Davis and the SF businessman in this scenario.
It must be said however that I do not see any evidence to suggest Zodiac was familiar with LB.
I am inclined to believe he did.

It is clear that CJB was stalked, unless you want to totally discount the confession letter, which indicates he knew of her if not directly, then in his own mind (still very much stalking). She may have been worshipped from afar. What makes sense to me is that she'd seen him around, felt comfortable enough to accept help from him and apparently converse wth him for quite a while.
Davis would make a good candidate if it can be established that he actually had been doing some welding work at RCC ( as has been suspected).

I'm not denying that CJB was stalked, what I'm saying is that we don't know if the guy who stalked her is also the same guy that killed her.

Doug wrote: "The bottom line is that it's difficult to assess modus operandi and signature without understanding the perpetrator's state of mind."

I don't agree with this at all. In fact, I feel that the exact opposite is true. We have tons of information regarding Zodiac's MO and signature and yet know practically nothing about the motives that compelled him to commit the crimes. At least, that's my opinion. Anybody else think my opinion is valid? Why or why not?

Lapumo wrote: "It must be said however that I do not see any evidence to suggest Zodiac was familiar with LB."

I disagree with this statement, also. I'm of the opinion that, because he was able to successfully perpetrate the crime at LB, and because the CA DOJ's assessment of the writing on the car door places Zodiac at the scene, he must have been, at the very minimum, somewhat familiar with Lake Berryessa.

Lapumo also wrote: "I fully agree that Zodiac trolled particular areas.It becomes very significant if we believe Zodiac was familiar with these areas,especially in relation to the major suspects.Maybe we could discuss things from that angle!"

I agree that such an angle would be useful. If we look at ALA, for example, it is very obvious that he was familiar with all of the known areas that Zodiac struck. I'm not sure if the same can be said of any of the other suspects. However, with the aid of Howard, I'm trying to determine if the same can be said of Bruce Davis. We'll see.

Scott

Scott, in the post you cite, I wrote, "If distinct patterns of victimology, M.O. or signature are present, they ought to be taken into account." We have distinct patterns available to us in the Zodiac case, and we ought to be able to deduce something about his motivations. Will our deductions be perfect? Probably not. But we ought at least to make the effort, otherwise we're wasting our time after all.

It CAN be determined that Bruce Davis was familiar with all Z areas, read through Howard's site thoroughly. Not only that but he is a known violent murderer, something that has never been established about Allen. We know he was a child molester. And?
His prints do not match, his handwriting was not deemed to match, the wrist is way too big, the composite is way off, how much has to be rationalzed about this guy to shove a round peg into a square hole. I'm sorry but a zodiac watch and a possible titwillow sighting does not do it for me. My uncle had that watch as did alot of
uncles. Oh he lived in Vallejo?? So let's arrest all males that lived in Vallejo at that time. We have nothing concrete that Z even lived in Vallejo. I will reiterate Davis and Ted K are much better suspects.

Let's get back to the subject of this thread.

I was simply using ALA to point out that we have a suspect who was familiar with all of the locations positively connected to Z. Sure, Davis and, perhaps, Ted K, were also familiar with the areas. What's your point? This only serves to bolster my claim that there are suspects who were familiar with all the murder locations; my reason for making example of ALA in the first place.

While we're at it, let me also point out that there are significant differences between the composites and TK and Davis, as well. First of all, neither suspect has a heavy build, let alone a "paunch" as Hartnell described it. I'm not sure of Davis' weight in '68 and '69, but I feel pretty comfortable saying that Ted K never weighed more than 175lbs. dripping wet in his entire life.

Secondly, IMHO, Ted K's handwriting (still waiting on more info. with regard to Davis' handwriting) looks nothing like Zodiac's.

Third, what is with the wrist size anyway? Because of the watch found at CJB's murder site? So what? What does that prove? It's not even known if Zodiac killed her or not, right?

And finally, NOBODY CAN BE RULED OUT BASED ON PRINT EVIDENCE! This is so patently obvious, especially in light of how the various police agencies handled the FBI's comparisons, that I'm surprised it even needs to be discussed in any more detail than it already has been. I never said that Ted K and Bruce Davis weren't good suspects, but at this point, in my mind, ALA is just as good a suspect as they are.

Just exactly how Sylvie's post and this post relate to the topic at hand is beyond me. However, because of the series of posts that almost decimated this thread last week, I feel compelled to set the record straight on my particular views whenever the need arises.

So, for the record, allow me to reiterate something: Despite the fact that I'm leaning toward ALA as an extremely viable suspect, I also believe that there are other good suspects. And TK and BD are right at the top of the list.

Scott

ps. Sorry Tom! I was writing while you were posting. I had a feeling you were about to step in!

Scott, I'd be interested to know exactly where Hartnell described Zodiac as having a "paunch."

Right now I am sliding harder over on LB being a stalking. Consider:

1 – When Z was at the road and coming down the peninsula he started his trek from over 100+ yards away. It does not seem likely that he could know that the people at the end of the journey would be likely targets unless he knew who was down there in some fashion.

2 – Z did not want to be recognized. It was broad daylight. If there had been any contact prior to this, then recognition would have been easy. Go out to some place like accuweather.com and see when your local sunset is and then take a stroll a half hour before that. That was the lighting conditions on that afternoon.

3 – In Hartnell’s interview he makes an interesting remark in describing Z’s speech.” His voice... I can remember... almost like I'd heard it before. You know there's some drawls that a lot of people have similar. And... almost as if I'd heard it before”.

4 – Psychologically I am not sure how this one falls, but related to (2) I do not think that murder was the primarily intended crime at LB. I believe it was the sadistic inflicting of massive pain and injury and a slow agony probably to death, but not necessarily – as was the case. Now is this “shrieking” intensity of rage upon the woman here something more likely to come from a man randomly choosing targets for venting or by someone who has focused and fixed on this single woman for some reason?

5 – Related to (4) if you remember the OJ trials when it was proposed that the murders were the result of a bad drug deal, the prosecution countered that the intensity of the attack was evidence that the attacker knew her and had rage against her.

6 – I find a strong line of similarity among the girl victims in their appearance. If this point of victimology is a part of his personation in his attacks, then how would he know that the people belonging to the car up on the road included a girl of the correct profile to engender the rage? If this were a part of his personation, would we presume that if this were totally random that he would have turned around and walked back if he found a girl with long dark Joan Baez-style hair? Or can we presume that he would not have gone down there unless he knew this was it?

7 – We seem to loose the holiday point of his personation unless we can call upon the knowledge that Shepard was SDA and the killing took place before sunset. I can come up with only two reasons for marking the time: either to peg the holiday aspect or to merely indicate daylight. If he knew that she was SDA, then stalking is the answer and it provides more consistency in his personation between crimes.

So for the random killing to make sense to me you would have to start explaining how he randomly maintains such broad personations of the crime as week-end, holiday, and victimology, just for starters.

Tom F

Tom F.,
Very excellent analysis. Reminds me of my critical thinking classes in college -- no matter what your point of view is state it well with rational thinking.
It is easy to say -- oh coincidence, coincidence but it is irresponsible if we don't connect the dots of all these coincidences. That's usually how serial killers are found.
Tom, I apologize profusely for my off track sidebar, and if I am about to do it again but I think it is integral to this discussion that we include Cheri Jo.
Scott, I don't know what you need to consider CJB a "definite Zodiac victim". What makes any other Z crime definite then?? Z took credit for it. The handwriting if the Bates letters as well as the RCC poem were all determined to be a Z match. The author knew details only the killer would know, so what then makes this questionable? Graysmith had it right when he called it ia definite Z victim, because most of the PD's had long concluded that. Now that the one and only other possible that RPD had turns up a definite NO MATCH, I think we can all get on with what we already knew.
My neighbor and good friend is an excellent RPD police officer. The only thing she thinks is Kooky is that I care about this 30+ old case ( oh well, it grabs you). Anyway she has enquired a bit and she tells me that the rumblings in the Dept. are that it IS indeed a Z crime. So now they just have to find out who Z is.