Zodiackillersite.com

Well both the Zodiac and the Unabomber did crimes, made bomb threats and wrote to newspapers demanding their words appear on the front page or innocents would die.

In his September 1966 journal Ted said he was ready to do things that were "daring, irresponsible and criminal".

IMO Zodiac morphed from a serial killer into a terrorist, with his threats to take out a school bus.

But why doesn't Ted admit to being Zodiac? Ted decided he would rather face the death penalty than have his lawyers say he was insane. As the Bates letter writer said "I am not sick", Ted said "I am not a sickie. They were going to portray me as a sickie."

Ted is a hero to some people in the anarchist primitivist movement and the radical environmental groups. He is interviewed by college professors and cited in journals. They view him as a political terrorist, a leader in a cause, someone who fought against big corporations and technology.

The Zodiac is a serial killer, viewed in the category of Jack the Ripper and Ted Bundy, a sick psychopath who shot teenagers in the back, a lovers lane stalker who took out his sexual frustrations on innocent men and women. Zodiac does get some "praise" for being a genius, going uncaught and making unsolvable codes. Yet these are overshadowed by killing teens and the label as a psycho.

For the most compelling info on TK as Z go here: viewtopic.php?f=102&t=938

Thanks for your response, AK Wilks.

I do see the similarities. And in many ways the theory is both interesting and compelling.

In one sense, though, I must say that I find the explanation for his silence on Z just a little too convenient. I realize that isn't a proper argument - because what you say about his motivation(s) isn't nonsensical at all. There's a logic to it - no doubt.

An important point, I feel, is this: is it reasonable to assume that TK wrote nothing in his journals which he did not expect (or at the very least suspect) would become public knowledge at some point? Because he does describe his urge to, well, simply kill people who for one reason or another pissed him off - shooting them and (if memory serves) kicking them in the face while watching them die...I mean, these are hardly the words of a philosopher (even an extreme one) and I can't imagine he would want his readership to focus on such passages. Yet they are there.

Another thing which I can't quite reconcile with what we know about Z is this: TK leaves for the woods (so to speak) at some point in 1969. He emerges as the Unabomber in 1978 (going by what is known). How does the Z letter of 1974 fit in here? I've always thought of Z as someone who, basically, lived in the Bay Area (roughly). His communications are sent largely from San Francisco (and none are from out-of-state). It would seem that TK must have traveled to California almost exclusively for the purpose of posting a letter. I know that he traveled great distances in order to mail his Unabomber communications (to throw the cops off the scent, no doubt) - but this strikes me as different. In terms of the, let's say, personality change - the transition into a more "respectable" sort of persona - I don't quite see how the '74 letter fits. He was obviously still the old Z (more or less) when this letter was sent.

Norse wrote:Thanks for your response, AK Wilks.

I do see the similarities. And in many ways the theory is both interesting and compelling.

In one sense, though, I must say that I find the explanation for his silence on Z just a little too convenient. I realize that isn't a proper argument - because what you say about his motivation(s) isn't nonsensical at all. There's a logic to it - no doubt.

An important point, I feel, is this: is it reasonable to assume that TK wrote nothing in his journals which he did not expect (or at the very least suspect) would become public knowledge at some point? Because he does describe his urge to, well, simply kill people who for one reason or another pissed him off - shooting them and (if memory serves) kicking them in the face while watching them die...I mean, these are hardly the words of a philosopher (even an extreme one) and I can't imagine he would want his readership to focus on such passages. Yet they are there.

Another thing which I can't quite reconcile with what we know about Z is this: TK leaves for the woods (so to speak) at some point in 1969. He emerges as the Unabomber in 1978 (going by what is known). How does the Z letter of 1974 fit in here? I've always thought of Z as someone who, basically, lived in the Bay Area (roughly). His communications are sent largely from San Francisco (and none are from out-of-state). It would seem that TK must have traveled to California almost exclusively for the purpose of posting a letter. I know that he traveled great distances in order to mail his Unabomber communications (to throw the cops off the scent, no doubt) - but this strikes me as different. In terms of the, let's say, personality change - the transition into a more "respectable" sort of persona - I don't quite see how the '74 letter fits. He was obviously still the old Z (more or less) when this letter was sent.

You seem interested in the subject so I would advise reading the several pages of info here viewtopic.php?f=102&t=938 and also going to http://www.unazod.com and reading what is there, and reading the excellent book by Doug Oswell.

Yes he wrote in his diary that the loud motorcyclists he thinks are ruining the area make him so mad that he WANTS TO shoot them and kick them in the head while they die. That is one thing, to confess to an angry thought. It is another thing to actually write of real incidents were you shot and stabbed teenagers. Ted writes of the Unabomber crimes while stating accounts of other crimes have been burned or buried because they would be "dangerous, embarrassing or just very bad public relations at this time."

As you said the first known Unabomber crime was in 1978. The last confirmed Zodiac crime was 1969, with some possible ones in 1970. So in 1974 Ted had not yet assumed his identity as "FC" or what the FBI called Unabomber. So in 1974 he may have wanted to have a final scare as Zodiac. He was living in Montana then and had been for several years, coinciding with the down period of Z letters, but interestingly enough he told his parents NOT to visit him in Montana in 1974 as he would be away in "Oakland California".

AK WIlks:

TK is a very interesting character regardless of whether he was Z or not - a puzzling man in many ways. So, I will definitely do some more reading.

I am somewhat familiar with Oswell's theory - though I have not read his book in full.

Now, speaking of Oswell and the '74 letter, I believe his theory is roughly as follows (not a theory about the '74 letter but about TK's "metamorphosis"):

According to Oswell TK has an epiphany of sorts in 1971. After this he takes up an anti-technology stand and starts down the path which will end up with his Unabomber exploits. Oswell explains the absence of any Z references in TK's writings in much the same way we've already discussed: the Z years is something TK is deeply ashamed of, his actions do not befit the "activist" he has become at all, hence the silence on the subject. And, as Ive said, I partly buy this. One may even go a step further and suggest that someone in his situation could have gone into complete denial over the Z business and, for all practical purposes, erased the memory of these years (it's not unheard of, this kind of repression).

But Oswell states very clearly that 1971 marks a watershed: once he has realized what his true mission is, the Z business becomes something he is deeply ashamed of; if he could have done so, he would have erased these youthful mistakes (and perhaps he did, in the form of repression). The problem with this theory, however, is that pesky 1974 letter. If this missive is genuine AND Oswell's theory is valid, I don't see how TK can be Z. After the epiphany (and this is three years after), reviving the Z persona would presumably have been the last thing he'd want to do.

I'm not saying this is conclusive - and I don't know to what extent you recognize Oswell's theories - but given his premise, at least, this seems like a considerable conundrum.

Norse wrote:AK WIlks:

TK is a very interesting character regardless of whether he was Z or not - a puzzling man in many ways. So, I will definitely do some more reading.

I am somewhat familiar with Oswell's theory - though I have not read his book in full.

Now, speaking of Oswell and the '74 letter, I believe his theory is roughly as follows (not a theory about the '74 letter but about TK's "metamorphosis"):

According to Oswell TK has an epiphany of sorts in 1971. After this he takes up an anti-technology stand and starts down the path which will end up with his Unabomber exploits. Oswell explains the absence of any Z references in TK's writings in much the same way we've already discussed: the Z years is something TK is deeply ashamed of, his actions do not befit the "activist" he has become at all, hence the silence on the subject. And, as Ive said, I partly buy this. One may even go a step further and suggest that someone in his situation could have gone into complete denial over the Z business and, for all practical purposes, erased the memory of these years (it's not unheard of, this kind of repression).

But Oswell states very clearly that 1971 marks a watershed: once he has realized what his true mission is, the Z business becomes something he is deeply ashamed of; if he could have done so, he would have erased these youthful mistakes (and perhaps he did, in the form of repression). The problem with this theory, however, is that pesky 1974 letter. If this missive is genuine AND Oswell's theory is valid, I don't see how TK can be Z. After the epiphany (and this is three years after), reviving the Z persona would presumably have been the last thing he'd want to do.

I'm not saying this is conclusive - and I don't know to what extent you recognize Oswell's theories - but given his premise, at least, this seems like a considerable conundrum.

Well I am not Oswell. I admire his book greatly, but we disagree on some points. Yes there was a breakthrough around 1971 when Ted crystalized his anti-social feelings into a more specific anti-technology belief. However I think the KEY breakthrough in Ted's life was earlier, around September 1966, which I discuss below. Also, I do not think Ted was "ashamed" (your word) of his activities as Z. In his journal he says accounts of other crimes have been burned or buried, not because he is "ashamed" of them personally but because they would be "dangerous", "embarrassing" or - and I think most importantly - "just very bad public relations at this time". In other words, not good for the image of the anarchist primitivist anti-technology movement of which the Unabomber was seen by some to be the spearhead and public face of. Does that make sense? I don't think Ted personally felt bad about killing kids and toying with the police. But he did not want bad publicity for the movement if he was revealed to have earlier killed teenagers in lovers lanes for "fun" as a psychopathic serial killer, as opposed to killing corporate executives as a terrorist.

But IMO we see that Zodiac was starting to change from a pure serial killer to someone who terrorized a city by bomb and sniper threats. A force of pure anarchy. And Ted as Unabomber admitted to a psychiatrist that he obtained "release sexual or otherwise" from reading about and writing about his bombings. Much as Inspector SFPD Dave Toschi theorized that Zodiac masturbated when writing his letters and reading them in the newspaper.

In 1974 Ted had not yet created his FC/Unabomber persona, so I am not shocked that he would have some "good times" again by writing letters, in a period when he told his parents he would not be in Montana but would be in Oakland CA. A little more puzzling would be the 1990 letter, when Ted was more established as FC, however he was in Northern California where that letter was mailed from when it was sent. Again, perhaps he just wanted to revisit a good memory.

This is the key moment for Ted IMO:



In the summer of 1966, most likely late August/early September 1966, Ted Kaczynski records a break through moment in his life. He is a genius, yet socially alienated and isolated. He decribes hearing the sound of couples having sex in the apartment next door to his, and he says it fills him with frustration and anger. Out of despair and self described "acute sexual starvation", he records in his journal that instead of killing himself he will "really kill everyone I hate."

The people he says he hates and wants to kill are many, but they include two distinct groups. One group is what he calls "bigshots" or "government officials", and these include "scientists", "big businessmen", "politicians" and "police".

The other group of people he hated and wanted to kill included love making "couples", "rowdy college students" and those college men and women he deems "promiscuous". Look at the government psychiatric report on Kaczynski done after he was arrested for the Unabomber crimes:

In the summer after his fourth year [of graduate school, the summer of 1966], he describes experiencing a period of several weeks where he was sexually excited nearly all the time and was fantasizing himself as a woman and being unable to obtain any sexual relief. He decided to make an effort to have a sex change operation. When he returned to the University of Michigan [most likely in late August or early September 1966] he made an appointment to see a psychiatrist to be examined to determine if the sex change would be good for him. He claimed that by putting on an act he could con the psychiatrist into thinking him suitable for a feminine role even though his motive was exclusively erotic. As he was sitting in the waiting room, he turned completely against the idea of the operation and thus, when he saw the doctor, instead claimed he was depressed about the possibility of being drafted. He describes the following:

"As I walked away from the building afterwards, I felt disgusted about what my uncontrolled sexual cravings had almost led me to do and I felt humiliated, and I violently hated the psychiatrist. Just then there came a major turning point in my life. Like a Phoenix, I burst from the ashes of my despair to a glorious new hope. I thought I wanted to kill that psychiatrist because the future looked utterly empty to me. I felt I wouldn't care if I died. And so I said to myself why not really kill the psychiatrist and anyone else whom I hate. What is important is not the words that ran through my mind but the way I felt about them. What was entirely new was the fact that I really felt I could kill someone. My very hopelessness had liberated me because I no longer cared about death. I no longer cared about consequences and I said to myself that I really could break out of my rut in life an do things that were daring, irresponsible or criminal." [Psych Report] {Emphasis added}

AK you always make a good case for TK..

AK: the "deeply ashamed" part is, I believe, Oswell's - not mine.

But, as you say, you're not him. And snooter is right - you certainly argue your case well.

Thanks snooter and norse! I appreciate all feedback, questions, comments and even constructive criticism, but I will take the occasional compliment as well!

Yeah my point is that I don't think Ted was personally ashamed of killing teens, in fact he wrote with praise of Neanderthal man and primitive tribes that murdered and tortured others. He thought such cruelty was mans natural state and a more authentic way to live than the so called civilized technological state. But I do agree with Doug Oswell that with the Unabomber's growing popularity among some in the radical environmental and primitivist anarchist movements, he did not want exposure as Zodiac.

Some different facts, evidence and ideas...

I think it was TRAV who did a screen capture of this image from the German documentary on the net, computers, lsd and Ted.

This shows that Ted was burying ammo as early as 1973. Which fits with his writings that he was expecting shootout with the police this early, which is odd, because the first unabomber crime was in 1978.

So in 1971 when Ted says he has "violently rebeled" against society, what is he talking about?



---------------------------

The Zodiac = This is the murderer of the 2 teenagers last Christmass at Lake Herman & the girl on the 4th of July near the golf course in Vallejo. To prove I killed them I shall state some facts which only I & the police know. Three-Part Cipher, 1969.

FC aka Unabomber = To prove that we are the ones who planted the bomb at U. Of Cal. last May we will mention a few details that could be known only to us and the FBI who investigated the incident. S.F. Examiner Letter, 1985.

The Lords Avenger = "I built with these hands the bomb I placed in the car of Judi Bari. Doubt me not for I will tell you the design and materials such as only I would know."

------------------------------

Did Zodiac have an unusual or distinctive walk?

If he did that may be an interesting factor to consider when looking at potential suspects.

In the first report of Officer Fouke, he wrote that the man he saw walking away from the Stine crime scene - who was probably the Zodiac - had a "shuffling lope". The key line in full is:

"Subject at no time appeared to be in a hurry walked with a shuffling lope, slightly bent forward head down."

It is not quite clear exactly what Fouke means, but apparently the walk of Zodiac was distinctive enough that he remembered it and felt it worthy to note. Fouke later amplified on this somewhat ambigous description in the documentary on the Zodiac 2 Disc DVD. From a transcript provided by Doug Oswell and on the Howard Davis site, Fouke states it was a:

"lumbering gait, sort of stumbling along, like a semi-limp."

See documentary video at 1:27:17.

On 9/27/69 three college girls at Lake Berryessa felt they were being watched by a man who behaved oddly, hiding in his car and then behind trees. Some think this man could be the Zodiac. One of the girls, called "Lorna" by Robert Graysmith in Zodiac Unmasked, gives an interesting description on pp. 395-396, parts of which I relate here, with the key part emphasized:

He was not distinctive, just an average, normal plain person, other than he gave us the creeps...I remember his face as square, all sides symmetrical. I don't remember him being pudgy, just compact...stocky, solid. The minute you mentioned the suspect was a swimmer, that felt so right about his body type. I wouldn't say he had a limp, but he favored one leg when he walked. He was clean-cut, nice-looking, and wearing dark blue pants, pleated like suit pants, and a black sweatshirt with short sleeves, knitted at the ends."

So with these descriptions of an unsusual or distinctive walk by Zodiac we should consider if this matches any of the known suspects.

Credit to Doug Oswell for the following discovery.

In terms of Ted Kaczynski, David Kaczynski told the FBI in his Declaration of February 18, 1997:

"The FBI asked me if there was anything unusual about my brother's gait. I replied that his left foot is noticeably pigeon-toed and affects the way he walks."

It must be talked about here somewhere...I searched, but didn't find anything.

I just now saw Graysmith wrote a book about the "Unibomber". Surely you have read it AK...what are your thoughts?

Tahoe27 wrote:It must be talked about here somewhere...I searched, but didn't find anything.

I just now saw Graysmith wrote a book about the "Unibomber". Surely you have read it AK...what are your thoughts?

Believe it or not, it is actually a very good book! I don't have a specific section on it, but I reference material from it throughout my research.

In the book He devotes a little bit of analysis to TK as a Z suspect, as he also does in his book "Zodiac Unmasked". He correctly notes many interesting similarities between TK and Z, including excessive often double postage, demand for words to be on the front page or people would die, bomb threats to transportation, etc., etc. He says Ted should be regarded and investigated as a "serious" Zodiac suspect, but ultimately says the similarities are "fascinating" but probably "coincidental". He downgrades Ted as a Z suspect mainly because he is so locked into Allen, such as ignoring all the descriptions of Z weighing 160 - 200 pounds in favor of larger estimates that are closer to Allen, saying Ted is probably to thin to be Z. Though he notes in his TK book Ted as the Unabomber wore multiple shirts, stuffed a towel under his jacket and wax in his mouth and nostrils, all designed to make him look heavier than he was in real life!