Ted Kaczynski (continued)
Zodiackiller.com Message Board: Other Suspects: Ted Kaczynski (continued)
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (244.philadelphia01rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 188.8.131.52) on Friday, March 30, 2001 - 04:33 am:|
Linda, thanks for putting down those thoughts. Additionally, I should observe that
comparing modus operandi is no viable way of comparing subjects that are ten to fifteen
years removed from one another. A an unknown subject may chain smoke unfiltered Camels in
1969 and a certain suspect may chain smoke Marlboros in 1985, but the least common
denominator isn't Marlboros or Camels; it's chain smoking.
The idea that a "mad-bomber" is too cowardly to kill in a confrontational manner is, in my opinion, a manifestation of slipshod thinking that places criminal profiling on a par with pop psychology. The designation "mad-bomber" indicates a personality type and pertains only marginally to the instrumentation employed. In short, it is possible (and perhaps even typical) for an individual to possess a "mad-bomber" personality and yet have access neither to bombs, nor the means of making them. Suicidal mass murder using firearms is, I would say, the usual means by which mad-bombers kill when they don't have bombs. Kaczynski's writings show him to have been fixated on the idea of suicidal mass-murder, although, by his own admission, he was far too fond of life to pursue its suicidal aspect.
We do know, however, that his resolution to kill began in 1966 and that he never built a bomb powerful enough to kill until 1985. He certainly understood the concept of explosives before that time, but it ought to be borne in mind that the real difficulty in constructing bombs reposes in the electronics, and particularly in the way they're detonated. That takes a lot of practice.
One other myth that needs to be dispelled regarding Kaczynski is that he was some sort of slight, girlish, pale-faced intellectual who couldn't punch his way out of a wet paper bag, or one who would have shrunk, terrified, from a physical confrontation. Kaczynski was a social misfit who had a hard time dealing with social confrontations, but in every other kind of interaction he was more than normal, and perhaps even a bit forward. In 1966 he undertook a determined program of rigorous physical training to prepare himself for the wilderness life he contemplated. Even during his professorial days at Berkeley he was capable of living completely off the land, with all the physical stamina and mental toughness that that lifestyle implies. His Montana neighbor, Chris Waits, recalled occasions upon which Kaczynski directly (and with rage) confronted trespassers, and of course, thanks to Waits and his special relationship with the FBI, we now are fairly certain (if not positive) that Kaczynski permanently disabled a local miner by shooting him with a 30.30 rifle.
Physically, Kaczynski may be "lean," but he certainly can't be described as "slight." In fact, he's somewhat big-boned, with a heavy facial structure that's indicative of someone who ought to be heavier than he actually is. His weight at the time of his arrest, following years of brutal outdoor living, and an especially cold winter in Montana, was 150 pounds. Based on his Berkeley photo, I'd put his weight in 1969 as between 160 and 170. And according to Kaczynski's own account, he disguised himself with bulky clothing in order to make himself appear heavier than he actually was. Given the extreme disparities between the eyewitness accounts to Zodiac's attacks, especially the disparities within the individual accounts themselves, I think it's safe to conclude that Zodiac was not especially large. Based on the accounts, I'm inclined to think that anything between 150 and 190 wouldn't be out of the question, which doesn't serve to exclude too many suspects except the egregiously big and the abnormally small.
|By Scott White (Scott_White) (a010-0686.stbg.splitrock.net - 184.108.40.206) on Friday, March 30, 2001 - 07:51 am:|
The last postcard mailed by Zodiac probably was a false claim to the disappearance of Ms. Lass but I think "peek thru the pines" is refering to tk's cabin among dense forest.Also "Around in the snow" What's done around in the snow. Skiing right.Well substitute for "snow" with the word "ski" giving you "around in the ski" switch the words giving you "the around in ski" sounds like Ted's name. in anagram "theodur a inn ski" Copyrighted by Scott White but permission to use in a Zodiac book upon request may be granTed by Mr.White.Thank You
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (138.philadelphia08rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 220.127.116.11) on Friday, March 30, 2001 - 08:06 am:|
I wouldn't go that far, Scott, but it's a clever interpretation. Of course, did you
ever know a Polish man who didn't go by the appellation of "Ski?"
All seriousness aside, that card was mailed during the period of time in which Ted left his parents' home in Illinois and drove out to Montana to join his brother, who had recently taken a job in Great Falls. This time period comprised a two- to three-week period of absence in which no one knew where Kaczynski actually was. He simply turned up at his brother's house around two or three weeks after disappearing from his parents' house, and they became worried that he was suicidal and had done something drastic.
As it happens, he had already formulated the plan to buy land and build a small cabin in Montana. His brother claims that Ted regaled him with the idea upon arriving at his apartment in Great Falls. The time given for his disappearance is "winter, 1971," while the time given for his showing up at David's apartment is "spring, 1971." This corresponds pretty well with the date of the Pines postcard.
By the way, the state tree of Montana is the Ponderosa pine. And the ad from which the card was constructed is one for newly-constructed "mountain condominiums."
|By Parry Haskin (Parhas) (spider-tp022.proxy.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Friday, March 30, 2001 - 09:31 am:|
The fact remains that TK was not a large individual at any time, even given the
ludicrous propositon that one can infer weight from a photo.
Z by almost all credible descriptions was a very husky person. This is just another example of someone trying to fit z into their suspect's image. As for the "mad bomber" remark, most bombers are reticent when it comes to dealing with people. That's one of the reasons that they use bombs, so they can kill from a distance. While I must admit TK and z use some of the same phraseology, the basic message is different. I would like to see a psycholinguist analyze the writings of both for comparison purposes, then we could all get a better idea regarding the communications. Again, I have not ruled out TK as z, but it seems extremely unlikely.
|By Scott White (Scott_White) (a010-0681.stbg.splitrock.net - 22.214.171.124) on Friday, March 30, 2001 - 02:15 pm:|
Doug, since i consider you the top expert on the Kaczynski/Zodiac connection.I'm curious as to your opinion of my 2 pieces I left at the end of Ted Kaczynski part 1 before the new thread.One deals with "this is the Zodiac speaking" and the other is based on your solution to the 13 code, I guess you could call it "modified Oswell". In answer to Parry's comments,Kaczynski does have a large face and Zodiac used a puffy jacket to appear larger. Hartnell witnessed this.The Unabomber also wore a puffed up jacket as a disguise.Since bombers attack at a distance and Zodiac was an in your face killer,does that fact that Zodiac threatened to set off a bomb disqualify Zodiac from being Zodiac
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (212.philadelphia01rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 126.96.36.199) on Friday, March 30, 2001 - 03:56 pm:|
Scott--That's a very piquant observation. Also, you bring up a point that I've never
seen anyone but myself address, namely, the statement by Hartnell (buried in an appendix
to the Graysmith book) that Zodiac was "lightweight." I quote (p. 317):
"He had to be fairly lightweight (without puffed-up jacket). All the guys the police had me look at were really fairly husky guys. This guy I think was in his thirties and fairly unremarkable."
Something tells me that the Napa police were fairly sure they were dealing with a "husky" guy and tended to lead Hartnell in that direction. It would be nice if Hartnell could clarify this point for us.
So far as the solutions you mentioned, I think they're as good as anything anyone else (myself included) has proposed. The partial anagramming of Kaczynski's name in the opening statement was something noticed by Rusconi and me from the outset, but to tell you the truth, unless it's a perfect anagram I don't think anyone is going to buy it, no matter how compelling.
|By Classic (Classic) (spider-wi073.proxy.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Friday, March 30, 2001 - 09:22 pm:|
What about the footprint found at LB that showed that z was over 200lbs.? Classic
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (ac8a5fca.ipt.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Friday, March 30, 2001 - 10:53 pm:|
Doug, Hartnell also is quoted as saying (regarding Allen), "There was nothing
about what I heard or saw that would rule him out."
In other words, at least in this instance, size does matter.
|By Scott White (Scott_White) (a010-0743.stbg.splitrock.net - 220.127.116.11) on Saturday, March 31, 2001 - 08:09 pm:|
It seems the science behind gauging a person's weight thru impression in dirt wouldn't be very reliable.Maybe what he was carrying(gun,knife,costume,etc.) would influence the result.But in all honesty i'd like to see that test in writing and how it was conducTed because ill tell Robert Graysmith is a good guy and im grateful for his book and the printing of the letters and the raw info but some of the stuff in there is pure fairy tale.I mean to say well this happened 4 days before this holiday and this happened on the samoan holiday for the fish. I mean which days arent holidays or 6 days from one. But there is definetly a one man conspiracy in that yellow book to have Zodiac be about 220 pounds to match Mr. Allens appearance.Oh also somewhere along the way a white car surfaces.Mageau says it was tan,Zodiac said it was brown.This is just a guess,but did Mr. Allen drive a white chevy in 1969.But anyway if there is a report concerning the footprint evidence it would be interesting to read.
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (ac868ba2.ipt.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Saturday, March 31, 2001 - 09:37 pm:|
Scott, you need to spend a little less time posting messages, and a little more time
looking through the rest of the site.
(And no, it's not because you think Ted is Zodiac.)
If you had read the Lake Berryessa report I posted some months ago, you would have known that Hartnell's own description was of a man 225-250 pounds. Ditto the witnesses who saw a suspicious man in the area...they also described a man over 200 pounds.
|By Scott White (Scott_White) (a010-0720.stbg.splitrock.net - 22.214.171.124) on Sunday, April 01, 2001 - 01:02 pm:|
I,ve looked thru the site and it's really great reading the actual letters etc.I may have read the Lake B. if it the 22 page item.But long before i'd ever heard of Ted Kaczynski i came to the conclusion that Zodiac was purposely trying to appear larger.Why? For one thing Mageau originally thought Zodiac was the man arguing with Darlene so he gave the police his description.Then when he realized it wasn,t him then Zodiacs weight was 160. also consider the following quotes " .....The rest of the time i look entirely different"-Zodiac "HE had to be fairly lightweight without the puffed-up jacket"-Mr.Hartnell "They kept having me look at these husky guys but.......he was unremarkable(average)"-Bryan hartnell "The man's stomach hung over his trousers or he had a puffy, air-filled jacket"-Mr. Hartnell A-HA was that paunch pre-planned ?
|By Jake (Jake) (spider-tj043.proxy.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Sunday, April 01, 2001 - 01:49 pm:|
"For one thing Mageau originally thought Zodiac was the man arguing with Darlene so he gave the police his description."
Mageau didn't see Darlene arguing with anybody.
Z has been described as "real heavyset," "beefy," "195-200, maybe even larger," "Heavy build," "200/225 lbs," "225-250 lbs," "stomach hanging over trousers," "stout," "kind of heavy," "180-200 lbs, medium heavy build, barrel chested," "180-210." There's a reason Hartnell's "fairly lightweight" comment was relegated to an appendix.
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (ac8acfbf.ipt.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Sunday, April 01, 2001 - 01:59 pm:|
Scott, you need to start making sense with your posts or it's adou for you. Ignorance
is no excuse when so much information is just a few clicks away.
I don't care who you think is Zodiac, but your conclusions seem to be the result of ignorance.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (198.philadelphia01rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 184.108.40.206) on Sunday, April 01, 2001 - 03:52 pm:|
Why don't we all just say adou?
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (ac931ebd.ipt.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Sunday, April 01, 2001 - 04:03 pm:|
Doesn't adou mean delay? Oh, well. Speaking Canadian isn't my strength.
I meant Scott will not be able to post messages for a while, at least until he can add to the discussion.
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (ac931ebd.ipt.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Sunday, April 01, 2001 - 04:13 pm:|
I think Ted was greatly influenced by Zodiac, and that accounts for any similarities
between the two.
At least two copycats are known to have been active, one in Japan and the other in New York. Both have been caught, but I think Ted was the first.
|By Scott White (Scott_White) (a010-0693.stbg.splitrock.net - 22.214.171.124) on Sunday, April 01, 2001 - 08:43 pm:|
OK tom you win.From now on i'll write about what a great suspect Mr. Allen is.I'll write all about how he creaTed the greatest murder mystery ever, keeping the whole SF area terroriZed,and yet couldn't pull off a child molester rap.I'll write about how he left a bloody knife out for others to see and then bragged to police"you shall never catch me because i've been too clever for you".I'll write about how since Allen and Stine were both born on Dec 18, that the killings weren't random afterall. And Jake, don't you even realize you're arguing on my behalf when you talk of Graysmith burying those quotes in the back of the book.Those facts interfere with graysmith's hot suspect and we can't have that.So of course he buried them in the back.He's shameless at guiding the reader toward Mr. Allen but i guess not shameless enough to completely omit those facts from the book. Read pg 72 and 262--Graysmith coordinates Zodiac putting his bloody knife on his front seat with allens family member viewing a bloody knife on his front seat. Only problem is Gray does not know what Zodiac did with the knife. Its a false tie-in to Mr. Allen.I hate that kind of nonsense. But Tom, censoring someone because you disagree with them, that's low and no way to run a website.To say i'm not adding to the discussion is false. I've read some really ridiculous things on here(but i still enjoy them)and isolating mine as meaningless is low.Please point out a writing of mine that you feel has no substance.In fact I just recently read a writing of yours showing your ability to draw lines(arthur leigh allen confessions).Maybe you should censor yourself for lack of substance on that one. And by the way,Ted Kaczynski has nothing to do with my dismissal of Mr.Allen. I've always viewed Allen as a poor suspect since 1991 when i first read the book. If I am censored,I know it will be because I am making convincing arguments that point away from your outstanding suspect,and much like Mr. Graysmith you can't have that. I will certainly think much less of you as a human being. P.S I think by June the weather will be quite comfortable in Russia. Love and Kisses, Scott White
|By Scott White (Scott_White) (a010-0693.stbg.splitrock.net - 126.96.36.199) on Sunday, April 01, 2001 - 09:02 pm:|
Oh also Jake Pg.39 my studious and all-knowing fellow Zodiac student. "From a report I learned of another change in Mikes story...........that Darlene and another man had an argument while he(mike) was present in Darlenes car at Terrys the night of the shooting....the stranger followed them to Blue Springs Rock where the argument continued.And that they were shot by that man" Jake i'll understand if you tell me your dog ate page 39.
|By Bruce (Bruce_D) (pm3-01-06.sle.du.teleport.com - 188.8.131.52) on Sunday, April 01, 2001 - 09:24 pm:|
Sounds like we have a flame war developing here. We haven't had a SUPER good one since
somebody from our site, about six months ago, went over to that site that is about old
movies and accused one of their members, RICHARD MARSHALL, of being the ZODIAC. I'm just
going to sit back and enjoy observing this one.
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (ac917797.ipt.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Sunday, April 01, 2001 - 09:33 pm:|
"But there is definetly a one man conspiracy in that yellow book to have Zodiac be about 220 pounds to match Mr. Allens appearance."
This has nothing to do with Allen or Kaczynski. You have demonstrated with your posts that you aren't familiar with the facts. Even if Kaczynski is Zodiac, the reason he was thought to be over 200 lbs had nothing to do with the yellow book, and everything to do with the descriptions of the victims and witnesses.
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (ac917797.ipt.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Sunday, April 01, 2001 - 09:37 pm:|
"i came to the conclusion that Zodiac was purposely trying to appear larger.Why? For one thing Mageau originally thought Zodiac was the man arguing with Darlene so he gave the police his description.Then when he realized it wasn,t him then Zodiacs weight was 160."
Scott, do you have a brother named Carl?
|By Scott White (Scott_White) (a010-0722.stbg.splitrock.net - 18.104.22.168) on Monday, April 02, 2001 - 11:22 am:|
I keep hearing that I should look over this site before commenting,you know it's only a click away etc. I've already done that and the Allen files just don't impress me. Consider the following--- 3.17.71 "Mr. Allens father dies on what would have been Darlene Ferrin's 24th birthday, after Allen became a suspect, this was looked at with suspicion" ARE YOU KIDDING ME. All that stuff about Dec 18 and 32 and birthdays, all that stuff is voodoo evidence.You want a birthday connection, how about this. The 13 code letter contained 3 Taurus symbols and was sent on the first day of Taurus. Kazinski is born May 22, 3 days from the end of Taurus. If i'm wrong because of Graysmith forgive me. But really, pretending I'm this Zodiac novice, is ridiculous considering I know the book backwards.It seems as if you and Jake really ate crow when i brought Pg 39 to your attention. Tom, ignorance is no excuse when so much information is just a few pages away. p.s what does Carl mean ??
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (ac88ae07.ipt.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Monday, April 02, 2001 - 11:35 am:|
Jake and I happen to have the Ferrin-Mageau police report, and there is no mention of
the fantasy you call "page 39."
Quoting that stuff as gospel only makes you look like a bigger idiot.
|By Scott White (Scott_White) (a010-0722.stbg.splitrock.net - 126.96.36.199) on Monday, April 02, 2001 - 12:39 pm:|
Thanks Tom. I will now go thru my Zodiac book page by page and white out all the words that counter Mr. Allen's viability as a suspect. It is thru this clairvoyant technique that I will then have a fantasy-free book to re-read.
|By Jake (Jake) (spider-we054.proxy.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Monday, April 02, 2001 - 03:01 pm:|
Scott, this might surprise you, but there is far more Zodiac information out there than
one paperback from 1987. The quotes I offered you came from police reports and interviews,
most of them recorded before Allen was even a suspect. What's your theory on that? Was
everyone holding out for a fat pervert from Vallejo?
If you or anyone else in the world can produce Graysmith's mysterious "report" from page 39, then I'll eat some crow. Until then, I'll refer you to the reports of Det. Sgts. Jack Lynch and Ed Rust, as well as "Badly Wounded Youth Holds Key to Gun Mystery" (Vallejo Times-Herald, 6 July 1969) and "Killer's Sole Survivor Talks" (Vallejo News-Chronicle, 19 August 1969). It was Ferrin's sister, Christina, that allegedly witnessed the argument -- but she only remembered that years later. If you insist on being a smartass, it might help your cause if you actually researched the case a bit.
Incidentally, has it ever occurred to you that Allen and Kaczynski were not the only people in California between 1968 and 1974? And another thing -- if you're so smart, why haven't you ever heard of a paragraph break?
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."
|By Bryan (The_Giant) (184.108.40.206) on Monday, April 02, 2001 - 03:21 pm:|
swiiing... miss strike 1.
swiiing... miss strike 2.
swiiing... miss strike 3.
your out of there...
Swing hit out of the Park Grandslam homerun....
these dots do get fun don't they.
Sorry Bruce I admire you for not getting in on the flame, and I did.
|By Scott White (Scott_White) (a010-0687.stbg.splitrock.net - 220.127.116.11) on Monday, April 02, 2001 - 10:03 pm:|
Jake , my theory is that Zodiac purposely tried to appear larger primarily thru a puffy jacket. Thus he was reporTed as large or possibly large by some eyewitnesses. This would reduce his viability as a suspect, if he were only average while everyone else is looking large. This is the kind of planning that could result in a 33 year unsolved mystery as police run all over town checking out husky suspects. I think this would make him look "...entirele different ". I think Zodiac wrote of his disguise on Nov 9 because he knew after his close-call police incident, that he wouldn't attempt any more Zodiac murders( I dont think Johns is Zodiac relaTed). I think at that point Zodiac decided to continue his terror reign thru the mail mainly with bomb threats, then he evolved into sending bombs thru the mail.WHOOPS, strike those last nine words. Thank You.
|By William Baker (Bill_Baker) (pool0274.cvx4-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net - 18.104.22.168) on Monday, April 02, 2001 - 11:34 pm:|
Goodness, I actually agree with something you've said, albeit only a small part of
otherwise knife-whittling of the ol' square peg. I, too, think that the close call with
Stine (combined with the recent failed double murder effort at LB), shook Z's confidence
and caused him to no longer kill with the same sense of impunity he previously enjoyed.
I have doubts as to the Johns' case being his handiwork, but I don't feel comfortable saying that he didn't do it. Much the same as I have reservations about Z's involvement in the actual killing of Cheri Jo Bates. The two cases may have something in common, however, in that Z may have taken credit for something he didn't do.
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (spider-ntc-ta034.proxy.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Monday, April 02, 2001 - 11:43 pm:|
I'd like to think that I could tell if someone was husky or was wearing a "puffy jacket." I think I could tell if someone was husky by checking out his legs... big legs, probably husky. Skinny legs, probably not. Maybe Z was wearing three sets of clothes like Mageau at BRS...
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (52.philadelphia01rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 126.96.36.199) on Tuesday, April 03, 2001 - 12:08 am:|
Graysmith's description: "The man's dark sleeves were clamped tight about his
wrists, his trousers were tucked above half boots. (Evidently Zodiac was wearing blousing
rubbers, used by the military for trousers tucked into boots.)" and "The man's
hands were hidden by black gloves and he had on baggy, pleated slacks 'of the
Here we see baggy, blousy slacks in addition to a "puffed-up" jacket (tied at the wrists), and at least two layers of clothing (jacket plus shirt) on top.
Kaczynski: "When I bought this pipe, I was wearing a bulky cloak, with a jacket inside, so I would appear heavier than I am."
|By William Baker (Bill_Baker) (pool0274.cvx4-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net - 188.8.131.52) on Tuesday, April 03, 2001 - 01:28 am:|
Sorry Doug, but why must there be revisionist speculation to account for a smaller man appearing larger, other than to force-fit a suspect to the description given by a witness? It would make more sense to say that Ted was masquerading as Mike Mageau. If the thrust of your point is that Z was over-dressed in all instances where witnesses described a heavy-set man, and Ted somehow appeared taller as a result, I guess the soil compression findings of the shoe impressions at LB were likewise erroneous. In fact, in order to accommodate Ted as Z, almost all of the witness descriptions and physical evidence would have to be flawed. I suppose that's possible.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (28.philadelphia01rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 184.108.40.206) on Tuesday, April 03, 2001 - 02:04 am:|
Who are the known witnesses? Mageau, Hartnell, and the teenagers at the Cherry Street
scene. Mageau refers to the assailant as "stocky" and then offers a weight of
160 lbs. Hartnell describes the killer as around 200 pounds and then states that was
probably "lightweight, without [his] puffed-up jacket." The initial report of
the suspect in the Stine killing gives a weight of 170.
Those gross disparities suggest that the witnesses felt ambiguity about the killer's weight and build. That ambiguity suggests that the killer was not extraordinary in size. Feet no larger than size 10-1/2 also suggest a moderate build.
So-called "compaction" tests, as those at the Berryessa scene were described, are completely unscientific, uncontrolled, and make no accounting of differences in temperature, soil conditions, moisture, speed of motion, impact, or weight distribution.
A clever killer, of course, would understand quite well that if he gave the appearance of being heavy the police would certainly write off out-of-hand anyone who wasn't heavy--thus eliminating him. The same can be said for handwriting and spelling. Speaking of which, Scott, you may be fooling everyone else, but "your" not fooling me. :-)
|By Linda (Linda) (207-172-73-24.s24.tnt1.fdk.md.dialup.rcn.com - 220.127.116.11) on Tuesday, April 03, 2001 - 02:50 pm:|
Speaking of the shoe print... were the authorities "positive" that the shoe print was indeed that of Zodiac? If they were, what are the shoe sizes of each of suspects?
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (ac843ed3.ipt.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Tuesday, April 03, 2001 - 02:58 pm:|
Allen was 10.5...just like Z. I bet a million other possibles were, too.
|By Jake (Jake) (spider-we014.proxy.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Tuesday, April 03, 2001 - 02:59 pm:|
"Who are the known witnesses? Mageau, Hartnell, and the teenagers at the Cherry Street scene."
Don't forget Foukes and Zelms, who also described a heavy man.
"Mageau refers to the assailant as "stocky" and then offers a weight of 160 lbs."
Mageau referred to the man as "short, possibly 5'8" ... real heavyset ... real beefy, possibly 195-200, or maybe even larger" (VPD report, 6 July 1969).
"Hartnell describes the killer as around 200 pounds and then states that was probably "lightweight, without [his] puffed-up jacket." "
I've been looking for the source of this "lightweight" business, but I can't find it documented anywhere. What I can find is Hartnell's decription of the man as "kind of heavy ... weighing two and a quarter, two fifty, somewhere in there" (Interview with John Robertson, 28 September 1969).
If the Berryessa footprints existed in a vaccuum, I might question the methods used to gauge them, but when they indicate the same build described by every literally single living witness, I don't think there's much point in arguing them.
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (ac843ed3.ipt.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Tuesday, April 03, 2001 - 02:59 pm:|
And now, back to Ted Kaczynski.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (213.philadelphia01rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 188.8.131.52) on Tuesday, April 03, 2001 - 03:35 pm:|
Jake, what was the argument when MOH was your favorite?
I'm beginning seriously to doubt whether Foukes and Zelms saw Zodiac at all. And if they did see him, all they got was a glimpse of someone they didn't suspect and no doubt immediately put out of mind. And, once again, if that person had been of medium build and disguised to look heavier, there's no way a positive description of build could be made.
The Hartnell quote is buried in an appendix on page 317 of the Graysmith book. It didn't jibe with his theory so he put it where the average person wouldn't bother looking for it.
My argument has always been that if Zodiac had been truly of heavy build there wouldn't have been confusion on the part of the witnesses. That doesn't mean that Zodiac wasn't heavy. Rather, it signifies that no one whose size is in the midrange between the extremes should be eliminated on that basis alone. I'm certain that no reasonable person will gainsay me that point.
It's really no wonder that criminals like Zodiac (and Kaczynski) have nothing but contempt for the authorities, when they're so easily fooled.
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (ac843ed3.ipt.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Tuesday, April 03, 2001 - 03:45 pm:|
"The Hartnell quote is buried in an appendix on page 317 of the yellow book. It
didn't jibe with his theory so he put it where the average person wouldn't bother looking
Doug, are you admitting that you are merely average?
|By Jake (Jake) (spider-ta074.proxy.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Tuesday, April 03, 2001 - 03:51 pm:|
"Jake, what was the argument when MOH was your favorite?"
The argument was that Z was MOH, who didn't look too heavy from the photos. I'm not afraid to say I was wrong, and now that I can work from the evidence, rather than the suspect, I've found that such quandries have evaporated. You might try it sometime.
"I'm beginning seriously to doubt whether Foukes and Zelms saw Zodiac at all."
This probably won't matter to you, and unfortunately I have to keep the source confidential, but I have it on good authority that they did see him, and they spoke with him. Frankly, I believe it. Obviously, you're under no obligation.
"The Hartnell quote is buried in an appendix on page 317 of the Graysmith book. It didn't jibe with his theory so he put it where the average person wouldn't bother looking for it."
While I've found RG to get things wrong, especially in interpretation, I don't think I've ever caught him fabricating a quote. That being said, no one seems to know when Hartnell said this, in what context, or to whom. In a contest between this kind of a quote -- which goes against all of his other known statements -- and something documented in a police report or interview, I'll choose the latter.
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (213.philadelphia01rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 18.104.22.168) on Tuesday, April 03, 2001 - 04:02 pm:|
Tom, what do you say? Did Foukes and Zelms talk with Zodiac?
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (ac898495.ipt.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Tuesday, April 03, 2001 - 04:15 pm:|
According to an interview Foukes gave in 1989, the individual thought to be Zodiac was
observed for about 15 seconds, as the patrol car was cruising slowly looking for their
I wouldn't be surprised if a brief conversation took place, although Foukes claimed the man was observed until he turned and "appeared to enter a private residence."
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (61.philadelphia01rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 126.96.36.199) on Wednesday, April 04, 2001 - 04:06 am:|
Tom, a car "cruising" at 25 mph will travel 550 feet in fifteen seconds. That's 50 feet short of two football fields.
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (ac8a59a1.ipt.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Wednesday, April 04, 2001 - 10:32 am:|
Doug, cruising cops looking for a shooting suspect probably wouldn't be in too much of a hurry, especially considering the Presidio Heights neighborhood is packed with all sorts of places to hide.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (184.108.40.206) on Wednesday, April 04, 2001 - 11:52 am:|
My point exactly. Two football fields away on a dark street with plenty of places to
hide--it's hard to see how anyone could have gotten a fifteen second look. I believe the
rumor is that the individual was seen only from profile. How so, if they saw him all the
Mind you, I am not trying to shoot down this notion. But under the circumstances as you lay them out (in this scenario) they could hardly have noticed much, if anything.
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (ac9ff868.ipt.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Wednesday, April 04, 2001 - 12:53 pm:|
The patrolmen noticed the suspect from a distance walking east on Jackson Street, as they were slowly cruising west. Just before the officers could see the suspect up close, he turned to his right and appeared to enter a private residence. Their best look at him was his left profile. Fifteen seconds was the estimated time of this encounter.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (18.104.22.168) on Wednesday, April 04, 2001 - 01:04 pm:|
So they really didn't see too much.
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (ac8881a3.ipt.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Wednesday, April 04, 2001 - 04:01 pm:|
As has been documented many times, the encounter was brief.
Were you under the impression the officers enjoyed a cup of tea with the suspect?
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (217.philadelphia01rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 126.96.36.199) on Wednesday, April 04, 2001 - 04:15 pm:|
I've heard a rumor to that effect.
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p78.as2.dungarvan1.eircom.net - 188.8.131.52) on Wednesday, April 11, 2001 - 03:22 am:|
One of the things that has held my interest in Tk
as a suspect,is his use of double postage,assuming
it to be some kind of "idiosyncratic quirk"so to speak.However I have recently come across a book called "The worst-case scenario survival handbook"'which includes a chapter on "how to identify a bomb"(don't worry I didn't buy it,it was given to me).One of the things it suggests looking out for,is excessive postage on letters and small parcels-"this indicates it was not weighed by a post office".It goes on "it is no longer legal to mail stamped parcels weighing more than sixteen ounces in the united states-they must be taken to the Post Office.My point-the use of excessive postage by TK,may have had practical purposes.Oh,just to a touch of zynchronitivness,it was published by Chronicle books of San Francisco.:-)
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (180.philadelphia01rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 184.108.40.206) on Wednesday, April 11, 2001 - 03:56 am:|
No one ever claimed that Kaczynski used double postage, however, he did use
"excessive postage" on some of the bomb packages. On the other hand, he turns
out to have been very meticulous on other occasions.
One can only speculate as to why Zodiac used excessive postage on his envelopes. In the case of a multi-page mailing he might not have wanted to draw attention to himself by having it weighed, but the one- or two-page correspondences (or postcards) couldn't have required more than first-class postage. Perhaps it was simply another one of his "trademarks," meant to associate him exclusively with the mailings.
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p121.as2.dungarvan1.eircom.net - 220.127.116.11) on Wednesday, April 11, 2001 - 11:00 am:|
I meant to say excessive postage,rather than double.It still remains a link between TK/Zodiac.
Like I said,viewing this as a peculiarity,would,
in my opinion constitute something to take note of. The impression I was left with after reading that piece was that maybe it was not as strong connection as I had first perceived.
With Zodiac it still appears to have been a peculiarity.Whereas with Tk,he may have done it for practical purposes ie so he would not have to get his "parcels" weighed,while eliminating the possibility that said parcels would not be posted
for lack of sufficient postage.However I do not know enough about Ted to say that he did not include excessive postage on"normal"letters.If he did the original connection remains.
|By Jake (Jake) (spider-tr042.proxy.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Wednesday, April 11, 2001 - 11:29 am:|
Did Ted K ever use "excessive" postage before 1969?
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (proxy-dover.mednet.af.mil - 22.214.171.124) on Wednesday, April 11, 2001 - 01:25 pm:|
At this point I have no way of knowing whether Ted used excessive postage before 1969
or on any occasion other than those mentioned in connection with the Unabomber parcels.
Once he moved to Montana and began living off the land, and contributions from his family,
he became very parsimonious and wouldn't have wasted money unnecessarily on postage for
I might help, however, to know that, according to Kaczynski's faculty advisor at Michigan, Kaczynski had a tendency to overdo things, especially when it came to giving excessive proofs in his mathematical work. I believe that the same quality was mentioned, in a more roundabout way, in the Sally Johnson psychiatric report. It's indicative of a particular mindset.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (106.philadelphia01rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 126.96.36.199) on Wednesday, April 11, 2001 - 02:40 pm:|
Here are a couple of quotes from the Psych Report, mentioned in the post above:
"His mother identified her amazement that "out of
the blue" Mr. Kaczynski would express extreme anger and go into excessive detail
about relatively minor events."
"He did demonstrate some need for excessive explanation and often focused on
details." [This refererring to Dr. Johnson's interview with Kaczynski.]
"Some tangential thinking was intermittently evident throughout the interviews. As noted, he had a need to
provide excessive detail in an organized fashion."
"When asked about the basis of his belief system he
attempted to provide excessive supporting evidence."
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (spider-ntc-ta011.proxy.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Wednesday, April 11, 2001 - 04:02 pm:|
Douglas: I have a tendency to do that as well, but it's just to make sure I have all
my bases covered. For instance, I keep track of my gas mileage down to hundredths of a
mile per gallon. A little excessive in the way of detail, no?
P.S. Sometimes sheer overkill is fun anyway, no matter the topic or situation.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (26.philadelphia01rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 184.108.40.206) on Wednesday, April 11, 2001 - 05:03 pm:|
Ed, I'm inclined to think that anyone who takes things to that extremity has a little bit of a problem. But that's just my opinion.
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (spider-mtc-tj034.proxy.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Wednesday, April 11, 2001 - 06:47 pm:|
I do, Douglas. It's referred to acronymically as OCD (obsessive-compulsive disorder). It's more common than you might think...
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (171.philadelphia08rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 18.104.22.168) on Wednesday, April 11, 2001 - 07:31 pm:|
No, I think I understand it. Of course I don't want to commit the very un-PC sin of pigeonholing anyone.
|By Brian D (Brian) (dialup-22.214.171.124.sandiego1.level3.net - 126.96.36.199) on Sunday, April 15, 2001 - 06:48 pm:|
Doug, I visited your site and went through the evidence portion containing excerpts of Kaczynski's journal explaining (at least to his own satisfaction) for mailing pipe bombs to various people. If I understand your reasoning Kaczynski, while enjoying killing as the Zodiac, was frightened underground by his brush with the SFPD on the night Stine was killed, and resumed his career as the Unibomber. I didn't see any excerpts from Kaczynski's journal that made any references\admissions to his prior life as the Zodiac. Surely this is significant. He apparently had no problem putting in writing his guilt for the Unibomber crimes. Surely he would have no compunction about assuming credit for the Zodiac crimes were he guilty.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (69.philadelphia01rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 188.8.131.52) on Monday, April 16, 2001 - 01:18 am:|
Brian, in the preface to Kaczynski's journals (written in 1978) he states that the
sole reason he wrote the journals was to convince people that he was not "sick,"
or a "sickie." The journals were intended for public consumption to present
Kaczynski's motivations in the best possible light. Kaczynski placed his neck in the
hangman's noose in order to ensure that he would not be perceived by the public as
psychologically warped, or, in his words, "sick." He chose to face a certain
death penalty, rather than agree to an insanity defense. He later sought a retrial that
would certainly have resulted in a death sentence if granted (it was denied).
Put yourself in his shoes. It's 1968 and you are sexually frustrated to the point of despair; your career, for which you have spent your entire life of 26 years preparing is down the tubes; you are violently angry, having already vowed to begin murdering people, and in that frame of mind you lash out spasmodically against a class of people whom you feel represent the happiness and fulfillment that has been denied you.
But, though you have behaved impulsively, you are not an irrational killer, and having survived a harrowing brush with the law (and death, for you have also vowed not to be taken alive) you abandon your first, ill-advised impulse, and deliberately remove yourself from the scenes that have so angered you. You spend your days formulating a new rationale for your failures as a human being, to-wit, that human society imposes intolerable conditions on individuals that lead to personal unhappiness. Now that you have identified a new scapegoat, nothing will satisfy you but that you must lash out at its representatives, just as you lashed out against the earlier scapegoats, who represented your discontents in 1968. But you are older now, and wiser, and have no desire to expose yourself to the risks you ran before. You begin a campaign of bombing.
This is eminently more satisfying because it affords you the ability to convince yourself that your actions are noble, high-minded, and consistent with your self-image as a genius intellectual. You are proud of these crimes. You have a new, public persona that is recognized around the world, and that recognition includes the qualification that, whatever your deeds, you are a genius, and someone whose intellect is to be reckoned with.
The last thing in the world you want or need is to be associated with that tiny epoch in your younger days when red-hot passion and unreasoning rage got the better of you and led you to do something that you'd just as soon forget.
As the Unabomber you are treated with dignity and respect. As the Unabomber, your ego remains intact. As the Unabomber you possess a legion of admirers to whom you are a revolutionary, a martyr and a saint, all rolled into one.
But the Zodiac Killer was a psychological nut-case; a latent homosexual who murdererd minor children because he couldn't get laid.
Which persona do you think Kaczynski would want to take credit for?
|By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-wo023.proxy.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Monday, April 16, 2001 - 01:20 pm:|
Absolutely everyone who wanted to got laid in the Bay area in 1968.
Plus, I really do not think Ted's career was going down the tubes, au contraire -- he had a stellar future as a Mathmetician at any, and I mean any, university or Think Tank that he wanted.
Let us not forget either that Ted K is not a typical serial killer in the true sense of the word, as in a Bundy, Kemper, Gacy or Zodiac. These guys kill really for the fun of killing, that is the whole point. Ted K really had a certain goal, a point of view to show the world, a type of logic however warped you may think that it was. He probably even sees himself as guilty of civil disobedience, nothing more.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (198.philadelphia01rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 220.127.116.11) on Monday, April 16, 2001 - 03:41 pm:|
Sylvie, Kaczynski couldn't even get a date in Berkeley in 1968. He got so desperate
that he advertised "for a woman" in the newspapers, to no avail (this according
to a statement made by his brother to the FBI).
His career was certainly going down the tubes, first, because he was having trouble with the math department for specializing in a narrow, highly theoretical field of no practical import (the study of functions within circles) and second because he was having trouble dealing with the particular rigors of teaching.
My point has always been that Ted Kaczynski is not a typical serial killer, and neither was Zodiac. For more elaboration, see my essay on the subject, "Mass Murder and Modus Operandi" at http://home.att.net/~mignarda/mass.html.
|By Brian D (Brian) (dialup-18.104.22.168.sandiego1.level3.net - 22.214.171.124) on Monday, April 16, 2001 - 03:46 pm:|
Doug, Thank you for your reply to my post. It is food for thought and I admit (for what it's worth)that Ted K's picture looks more like the SFPD composite sketch than does Allen, Marshall, Kane et al. The guy in the sketch has a neck and is certainly not the face of a man over 200 lbs. However it raises some points that I failed to make in my previous post. True he wouldn't want to raise suspicion publicly that he was the Zodiac but would he necessarily want to forget his previous deeds? Clearly his journal was never meant for public consumption. I think he would have felt safe to make some point-counterpoint observations between his Zodiac days and what he was doing now as the Unabomber, if for no other reason than to congratulate\justify himself for "elevating" his campaign of terror to a more "respectable" object.
|By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-wj041.proxy.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Monday, April 16, 2001 - 04:34 pm:|
You know I suspect there may have been some sibling rivalry between Ted and his brother --the brother, while average could not hold a candle to Ted's intelligence. So maybe we can take what he says, well, not 100%. Look at the 1968 photo of Ted, he is very attractive and with a mind like that, I would have been fascinated to date him.
Some women find intelligence the ultimate aphrodisiac.
Point 2: how can a career be all washed up at 26??
Furthurmore, the Zodiac was into Naval codes, I mean everyone believes he must have had some Naval code training--Ted certainly was never in the Navy.
Allen and Kane are really much better suspects.
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (ac9b9a2f.ipt.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Monday, April 16, 2001 - 04:43 pm:|
I couldn't disagree more. I think Ted is a much better Zodiac suspect than Kane.
In a thread in the Other Suspects section, I'd really like it if someone could outline exactly why Kane is such a good suspect.
|By Esau (Esau) (proxy2-external.scrmnt1.ca.home.com - 184.108.40.206) on Monday, April 16, 2001 - 05:13 pm:|
Good posts Doug. You finally convinced me that TK is a viable suspect.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (252.philadelphia08rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 220.127.116.11) on Monday, April 16, 2001 - 05:36 pm:|
Esau, thanks for the encouragement! Sylvie, I think you need to do more research on
both these cases before trying to make snap judgements about what was and wasn't possible
regarding either Kaczynski or Zodiac. The fact of Kaczynski's sexual inadequacy has been
admitted by Ted himself, and as for his brother, David is every bit as intelligent as Ted,
entering Columbia University at the age of 16 or 17 and graduating in just four years,
with an entire semester taken off to visit with his girlfriend. Both possess intellects to
be reckoned with. So far as being washed up at 26, yes, that's exactly the way it turned
out. He dropped out of his chosen profession because he couldn't deal with it, nor could
he deal with having to work with other people.
And if I might just offer you a lesson in the facts of life, without seeming too condescending, I'd simply point out that sex is about ten percent physical and ninety percent social. Ted had no social skills. Zero. Personal appearance has absolutely nothing to do with it. If you can't communicate with other people you are not going to sustain relationships, homosexual, heterosexual or any other kind of sexual.
As for codes, Kaczynski kept a good part of his journals in an elaborate cryptosystem of his own devising. Had they not found the key in his cabin, the FBI would have had quite a job of deciphering them.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (252.philadelphia08rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 18.104.22.168) on Monday, April 16, 2001 - 05:40 pm:|
Brian, to address your observations, I can't agree that the journals wasn't exclusively for public consumption. Kaczynski pointedly gave this as the reason for beginning them, and although the FBI intended to use them against him, he was prepared to use them to argue his point that the Unabomber crimes were philosophically motivated, and not the work of a "sickie." If you're willing to abandon your life to make that point, you're certainly not going to dredge up a Zodiac-type past, for whatever reason, at least not in my opinion.
|By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-tr033.proxy.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Monday, April 16, 2001 - 06:14 pm:|
Doug, I have read and researched plenty -- we just have different info. it would seem.
I watched an interview with Ted's mother where she said it was Ted who was the real savant
(is that an english word, I sometimes mix my French and english, she may have said
Your point about relationships is well taken but before you were not speaking of that you said he couldn't even get laid. Don't you think that if say Pamela Anderson was an anti-social shy mouse she could still find plenty of mates??
Anyways, this is a whole different tangent.
Did you read Kelleher's profile?
I think he is on the right track. Zodiac did have a certain intelligence to be sure but not a classically schooled type like TZ.
If you want to know who Z was --I say look to a profile like David Berkowitz.
Ted K is about as much the Zodiac as Ted B.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (171.philadelphia08rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 126.96.36.199) on Monday, April 16, 2001 - 07:36 pm:|
No, Sylvie, I disagree. Compare Berkowitz's letters with Zodiac's. Zodiac's letters
are completely controlled, while Berkowitz's display signs of dissociation typical of
Any woman can find sex if she's willing to give it, but the same can't be said of a man. Sorry, but that's the "even-handed dealing of the world," to quote a Dickens character.
I've read Kelleher's profile but I think he's sticking his neck out way too far in trying to assess Zodiac's intelligence. The only thing that I think can be said with any degree of assurance is that Zodiac was intellectually eclectic, schooled either formally or as an autodidact in a wide variety of fields. And while he may or may not have had a genius I.Q., he certainly was no illiterate.
|By Sylvie (Sylvie14) (spider-mtc-ta041.proxy.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Monday, April 16, 2001 - 10:14 pm:|
The message re: Lawrence Kane by Mhoward on 11-4-2000 is pretty devastating, if it is all true.
Plus, and this is just a personal opinion, I think that the photo of Kane looks like the photo of Z sans glasses.
This has everything- a Riverside connection and all.
On top of that, the handwriting looks the same to me.
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (spider-mtc-tj042.proxy.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Tuesday, April 17, 2001 - 05:48 pm:|
Sylvie, I believe this is the post by Mhoward under the thread Other Suspects:
LAWRENCE KANE that you're referring to: Saturday, November 04, 2000 - 10:42 am. The unfortunate thing is that
information is taken directly from a two part story from the Chronicle in 1994
entitled "On the Trail of the Zodiac" by Rider McDowell. It is based on Harvey
Hines' investigation, and as Tom has pointed out before, much of Hines' research cannot be
duplicated. Larry Kane is an amazingly common name, and how Hines was able to divine his
Kane from the others, I don't know.
I do think that he has found interesting evidence about Kane regarding Donna Lass and Dana Lull (assuming it's the same Kane), and I'm curious as to why the South Lake Tahoe and Las Vegas police have apparently not bothered to follow up on it.
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (spider-mtc-tj042.proxy.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Tuesday, April 17, 2001 - 05:50 pm:|
But let's talk about Kane there. Teddy K. is the topic of discussion in this thread...
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p50-58.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 18.104.22.168) on Saturday, June 22, 2002 - 04:52 pm:|
While I do not believe Kaczynski is the Zodiac, or at least, have not seen enough to be convinced,I did want to comment on your approach.
You can be as right or wrong as anyone else,after all, this case is not solved.However it appears to me that what you are attempting to do is to "profile" him "into place".This has it's problems, because as any expert will tell you ,this is not an exact science.It also seems that the closest TK can be put to these murders is in the same state.Just to start with, while TK was a bomber,Zodiac was not.You also have Zodiac pegged as a serial killer,while on the other hand you have him down as a terrorist.While these two "terms" can be loosely connected to the individual in question,they are obviously not the same thing. .You (Zander) have likened him to Bundy,that's a fair call,but only to a point.Bundy went from organized killer to disorganized because he was, your Classical "serial killer", he could not stop until jailed or killed.There's not one shred of evidence that Zodiac killed after Stine.On the other hand just because Zodiac threatened to kill with bombs does not make him a bomber.
There is another small matter that will not go away and that is the difference between someone who kills at close quarters and one that kills from a distance.When zodiac mentioned bombs,you have it as a truthful statement and label him a bomber,on the other hand we he say "you need holes in you heads if you think"etc. it's ignored.There is also the period of time
between Zodiacs last confirmed kill and TK's first.
Perhaps,I am misreading you comments,but they do appear to contradictory
|By Linda (Linda) (208-59-124-142.s142.tnt1.frdr.md.dialup.rcn.com - 22.214.171.124) on Saturday, June 22, 2002 - 05:43 pm:|
Lapumo... You have to remember that the Unabomber didn't make his first appearance until 1978. After being caught, I believe it was noted that it was unusual for a criminal such as this to begin his career so late in life (especially since the only bout with the law that TK ever had was when he received a citation for passing a stopped school bus - in TK's words, "approxiamtely 25 years ago" - in 1996 when he admitted this, that would put the ticket around 70 or 71). There's no indication that Ted was ever in any trouble prior to that. I've always been suspicious as to why the FBI has not dug deeper into TK's past.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (11.philadelphia-18-19rs.pa.dial-access.att.net - 126.96.36.199) on Saturday, June 22, 2002 - 07:25 pm:|
Remember, too, that TK was a shooter as well as a bomber. He was also an arsonist and a peeper.
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-188.8.131.52.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 184.108.40.206) on Saturday, June 22, 2002 - 07:53 pm:|
Lapumo, when Zodiac writes.."if you cops think I'm going to take on a bus the way I stated I was, you deserve to have holes in your head"... he is referring to, if I'm not mistaken, shooting out the bus tires and picking off the kiddies as they come bouncing out. In other words he is writing that it would be foolish for him to be so close to the scene, and shoot at the kids, when he can more easily plant a bomb roadside and not be near the scene. I find this as evidence that Zodiac, after the Stine fiasco, has decided that he had better put some distance between himself and his targets, and has decided "bombs" are the way to do this. Lapumo you wrote "Zodiac threatened to kill with bombs". I'll accept that instead of a "bomber" label. That's how I'll phrase it from now on. Kaczynski and Zodiac both threatened to kill with bombs. Lapumo you wrote: "There is another small matter that won't go away and that is the difference between someone who kills at close quarters and one that kills from a distance." Actually, I find that as a Z/FC connection, when you view Kaczynski as a continuation of The Zodiac, but I'll write another post dealing with that. However, Kaczynski shot some guy in the back also.
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-220.127.116.11.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 18.104.22.168) on Saturday, June 22, 2002 - 08:23 pm:|
This is my opinion of The Zodiac case: Zodiac kills with guns and knives. He is almost captured and a composite is circulated. Because of this, Zodiac turns to bombs. He does not kill with bombs, not because killing bothers him, but because he is not a skilled bomber yet. Thus, we are left with a killer not willing to go face-to-face anymore, and someone who wants to kill with bombs but has not devoloped the skills yet. Zodiac admits his bomb was a dud, if you believe it. Under this scenario, an unactive but letter writing Zodiac makes sense. Zodiac moves to seclusion in Montana, he hates people, he has to get away from the noise-makers, the servitude-stiffs, and since society fuels his anger, he would have an easier time fighting off any desire to murder. He could also develop bomb skills at this time. By 1978, the alcoholic is back, and hand placing bombs as well as mailing some. Eventually, he is seen placing a bomb, a composite is circulated. Kaczynski pulls another Stine-like retreat. He takes some time off, again employs the strategy of developing his bomb skills, and now will only risk sending mail bombs. Both times(Zodiac and Kaczynski are seen and composited), they are scared into only risking trips to the maildrop.
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p51-171.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 22.214.171.124) on Tuesday, June 25, 2002 - 03:23 pm:|
While both of you favour Kaczynski, each appears to have a slightly different perspective.Doug suggests that there was complete "break" or seperation between Kaczynski "the Zodiac" and Kaczynski "the unabomber".Zander appears to suggest that this was a more straightforward "continuation" (at least that's the way you have worded it).Can I ask you both how you how you view the 1978 letter,given the timing of the TK's "return" in that same year?
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (106.philadelphia01rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 126.96.36.199) on Tuesday, June 25, 2002 - 04:17 pm:|
Lapumo, there certainly would have been a "break" in terms of Kaczynski's
willingness to acknowledge crimes that he committed out of impulse rather than
well-contemplated principle. But there certainly would have been no break in Kaczynski's
psychological makeup, his disaffectedness, or his criminal signature, once he returned to
crime. The underlying causes of his disaffection would have remained the same.
I'm not too sure about the provenance of the 1978 letter. The general consensus now is that it was a fake. Assuming it to have been real, it was sent a month before Kaczynski arrived via train at his parents' house in Lombard, Illinois, prepared to plant his first bomb. The last line from the letter, "I am now in control of all things," seems the antithesis of the Belli letter, in which the author laments his lack of self-control. It suggests that Zodiac (if indeed he authored the letter) had finally beaten whatever demons had driven him.
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p50-172.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 188.8.131.52) on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 11:28 am:|
The one thing I do like about this "progression" from Zodiac to Unabomber is
that the riegn of terror spread nationwide.Something Zodiac perhaps begun with his LA
letter.One gets the impression
it's something Zodiac contemplated.There is no doubt you have two similar "animals" here in one sense.However you/we do appear to be faced with this kind of "missing link" scenario.As well as the similarities there are many differences also.
In order to link the two(as much as we can at this point,without physical evidence)it's this "transitional" period, that to me at least, causes most of the trouble. It appears to have it's origins in the assumption widely taken as fact on this board,that Zodiac got frightened off
the night of the Stine murder.The general consensus is that this made Zodiac "take stock" of his situation,so to speak.It's not an unreasonable assumption,but it is an assumption.
I believe Zodiac did rush into this murder,but not
that it was something put together in haste.I am of the opinion it's something he had to finish.
In other words,this was planned well before and was to be his last before that night.I'm rambling and that is something for another thread.
Coupled with the original assumption is that around this time TK began to form his "new vision".I understand that while there would have been no break in Ted's psychological make up,there would have came a point over the next few years when the Zodiac persona would have been abandoned in favour of that of the Unabomber.We also have to believe that the "sick/insane" Zodiac,who got so much pleasure form the ritual slaughter at LB was almost cured in one sense.
When we examine the person behind the Unabombings,we are not surprised to find someone like Kaczynski,it really fits doesn't it? We see someone who is well educated,his use of advanced code,the mathematics,his writings along with his psychological makeup and we understand.
However, along with the "psychological changes" necessary to allow him to evolve from one to the other, in my mind there are things that should not have changed.
Behind the Zodiac writings there appears to be an "immaturity" for the want of a better word.I do not see the same level of education.Don't get me wrong ,I'm not speaking of anything as trivial as the misspellings,we know that these were deliberate,I mean the overall picture is of someone less educated,though intelligent.Ted's code is advanced and has it's origin in pure math.
Zodiacs is at best, very basic and I believe only requires one to be able to count to ten.Kacyznski's "cause" is almost one we can understand.While I'm sure there is a whole other discussion that could be held debating whether anyone who kills in such circumstances is sane,the question that could be asked, is whether Ted killed for the cause or used it as an excuse to kill.We know what Zodiac was about.
Getting back to this transition period,on one hand
we have a guy with enough restraint to stop killing,on the other,if Kaczynski is our man,he still not only felt compelled to carry on for another four years writing letters,but would have had to have travelled hundreds if not thousands of miles in order to do so.One that was contemplating bringing terror to the USA as a whole,felt compelled to confine his treats to those in the bay area.Not only that but it appears he would have to do research to keep up with events as they unfolded in that particular area.Question is why? particularly at this stage.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (159.philadelphia-18-19rs.pa.dial-access.att.net - 184.108.40.206) on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 03:46 pm:|
Actually, Lapumo, the transition is much easier to perceive with Kaczynski as the
suspect. He had already planned to move away from civilized society and into the
wilderness, although it took just over a year and a half to find a parcel of land, time
during which he did virtually no work, travelled to the western U.S. at least twice, and
disappeared from his parents' home on a number of occasions without leaving any intimation
as to his whereabouts. He had a good car, and money he had saved from his job as an
assistant professor. He was also able to live off the land while travelling.
His resolution to leave civilized society would have acted in conjunction with any scare he had received as the result of the PH incident. Perhaps, however, he intended that incident to be his final act of murder, as others have suggested.
So far as the tone of the writings is concerned, you need to examine Kaczynski's non-Unabomber writings, especially his letters to family, friends and enemies. There's nothing studious or intellectual about them; they're styled in everyday vernacular and sprinkled with slang terms like "jagoffs," "sissies," "fat con-man," "c0ck-and-bull," "love and kisses," and an assortment of others. Kaczynski sounds intellectual only when he wants to.
You observe: "One that was contemplating bringing terror to the USA as a whole, felt compelled to confine his threats to those in the bay area." Kaczynski branched out a bit more than Zodiac, but all of his correspondences were mailed from the Bay Area; a good many were sent to the offices of the Chronicle and Examiner, and his idle threat letter, which paralleled Zodiac's in so many ways, was sent to the Chronicle and threatened West Coast transportation. He was so closely tied to the Bay Area that most of law enforcement assumed that was where he lived.
By the way, Tom, "c0ck" is not a dirty word -- unless you've got a dirty mind!