Ross Sullivan Pros Vs. Cons of him being Zodiac

[Norse]

All due respect, those guys were trained professionals dealing with mental illnesses,so I think, 1969 or not, they likely know more about mental illness more than anybody on this forum-1969 or not.

That doesn't mean their field of expertise hasn't changed over the years. We're talking about half a century worth of development between the Z era and our own. Surely that has to be taken into consideration. You can go back a hundred years, or a thousand years, and find people who were experts in their field - and who were brilliant thinkers - but whose work we simply can't accept at face value for obvious reasons.

[Nick, no Nora]

To be fair, the question really isn't how many schizophrenic are killers. It's how many killers are schizophrenics.

That said, I do think mental state is a question mark. Is Zodiac Hinckley-crazy or Oswald-crazy, to put it in those terms.

[morf13]

It would not surprise me in the least if ross was not confined in mental institution from late 60's onward for any extended period of time..do a little research on the political climate in late 60's with mental institutions..now morf i agree the mental analysis on ross then is as good as can be done today..it was done at nuremberg on the nazis and who is out disputing those findings..ok grant you the army refused release of the IQ data cause everybody thought they were dumb as dirt..my how surprising that data was on inteliggence and sanity of the resenburgs, goring, ribbentrop, goebels, keitel..etc....problem we face with ross outside of rcc is where the hell were you ross?..no he stayed at the Y is not going to suffice..

i dunno..ross right now is like believing gaik is the guy cause stine lived 2 doors down..but ross is a nice trump card..cause there is nobody else at this point that can positivly be placed in the library...gaik holds his trump card because he can be placed in SF without question..

i dunno..ross right now is like believing gaik is the guy cause stine lived 2 doors down..but ross is a nice trump card..cause there is nobody else at this point that can positivly be placed in the library...gaik holds his trump card because he can be placed in SF without question..

Just because we can't place him in SF doesn't mean he wasn't there. As I said before we know Ross was in Santa Cruz in 1968(his arrest) and in 1977(his death certificate). Furthermore, his death certificate stated that he was only living in Santa Cruz county since 1974 at the time of his death, which is proof he was living in another county prior. Was that county close to SF bay?

[joedetective]

I disagree Morf. Cant speak for everyone, but I am pretty suremy layman's profile has more merit that a profiler from 1969. That's not bragging, I just think criminal profiling was in its infancy back then, to the point where it 's like comparing astrology to astronomy. Just compare what psychiatrists did to patients back then, with their electro convulsive therapy and prescribing drugs like meth. They were probably still performing lobotomys back then. My point is, in terms of profiling, and psychology / psychiatry back then, in 1969, it was medieval times. To this day, I don't think profiling deserves to be called a genuine science. In fact I just watched something about how there was this recent experiment where they compared criminal profilers to a control group of general students, with regards to their actual accuracy, and found that criminal profilers were significantly better at profiling ONLY sexual violent offenders. When it came to serial killers with no sexual intent, they scored just as badly as those without training in profiling.

[snooter]

I will concede santa cruz has proximity to SF...i also agree the psych analysis is still viable.there is still much to learn though in regards to ross

[BigMajestic]

Have you heard what scientologists and Mormons believe in?

Now THAT is schizo!! ......"not that there is anything wrong with it"

And the other religion mentioned Tahoe? Hyper critical of others yet unaccountable with your own statements.

[morf13]

I disagree Morf. Cant speak for everyone, but I am pretty suremy layman's profile has more merit that a profiler from 1969. That's not bragging, I just think criminal profiling was in its infancy back then, to the point where it 's like comparing astrology to astronomy. Just compare what psychiatrists did to patients back then, with their electro convulsive therapy and prescribing drugs like meth. They were probably still performing lobotomys back then. My point is, in terms of profiling, and psychology / psychiatry back then, in 1969, it was medieval times. To this day, I don't think profiling deserves to be called a genuine science. In fact I just watched something about how there was this recent experiment where they compared criminal profilers to a control group of general students, with regards to their actual accuracy, and found that criminal profilers were significantly better at profiling ONLY sexual violent offenders. When it came to serial killers with no sexual intent, they scored just as badly as those without training in profiling.

Okay,so can you list your credentials as a mental health professional? To say that there have been advancements and new discoveries in mental health matters in the past 45 years is understandable, but to completely dismiss trained professionals who went to school & received training, just because it was 1969, is not.

[morf13]

I will concede santa cruz has proximity to SF...i also agree the psych analysis is still viable.there is still much to learn though in regards to ross

Santa Cruz has proximity to the SF bay area,sure, but in my opinion, it wasn't close enough. I think it's clear, Z, whoever he was, was living or working closer to the SF,Vallejo,or Napa areas, and not commuting that far to regularly mail letters & kill people. For me personally, a viable Z suspect has to be tied to the immediate SF Bay area to be Z. That's why, I can never declare Ross to be Z in my mind until he can be linked to the bay area.

[Norse]

The question isn't whether anyone here is better qualified, formally speaking, than a 1969 psychiatrist or profiler or what have you. Most of us, if not all (I don't know the credentials of every member here), clearly are not.

The question is whether it makes sense to put any stock in the diagnostic accuracy of a 1969 psychiatrist - and use the latter as part of an argument in this context. I think we should be careful when it comes to this. Not that modern ways are always better - they certainly aren't. But in that particular field the contrast between now and fifty years ago is pretty stark in many cases.

Lobotomy was still allowed in many US states in the 1970s, AFAIK.

Furthermore, look at how homosexuality was considered, pathologically, in the same era. And then move on to the often - to put it point blank - idiotic conceptions about causal connections between homosexuality and criminal behavior that were considered viable shockingly late in history in the medical/psychiatric/forensic communities.

[joedetective]

The question isn't whether anyone here is better qualified, formally speaking, than a 1969 psychiatrist or profiler or what have you. Most of us, if not all (I don't know the credentials of every member here), clearly are not.

The question is whether it makes sense to put any stock in the diagnostic accuracy of a 1969 psychiatrist - and use the latter as part of an argument in this context. I think we should be careful when it comes to this. Not that modern ways are always better - they certainly aren't. But in that particular field the contrast between now and fifty years ago is pretty stark in many cases.

Lobotomy was still allowed in many US states in the 1970s, AFAIK.

Furthermore, look at how homosexuality was considered, pathologically, in the same era. And then move on to the often - to put it point blank - idiotic conceptions about causal connections between homosexuality and criminal behavior that were considered viable shockingly late in history in the medical/psychiatric/forensic communities.

Thanks Norse. I think it's a joke to be quoting profilers from 1969. They pretty much thought all serial killers were schizophrenic homosexuals. In that respect I am more qualified than they were because we as a society know a lot more about psychopathy than professionals did then. They thought, for example, that profiles could be obtained from handwriting. We know now that this was quackery. Just like I'm sure in 50 years people will think it was crazy that so many people were on drugs like Prozac or Ritalin during this period.

Criminal profiling is constantly changing. And every new serial killer brings certain characteristics that others before didn't have, so theories constantly have to be altered. In the last 50 years the alterations have been astronomical.