The Zodiac Killer Was Not As Brilliant As You Think (And Why He Has Not Been Caught)

Dyslexic genius perhaps... they might have looked correct to him. History is full of geniuses who suffered from dyslexia, or aspergers or dyslexia, or any other conditions that affect spelling but have no degrading effect of IQ

originally posted by: DarknStormy
a reply to: WarminIndy

Hey, if you are researching the Zodiac Killer I recommend taking a look at this book in the link.

It's me, Edward Wayne Edwards the serial killer you never heard of

Edwards, a misguided boy, vowed to be the best criminal ever. He killed scores and scores of people of all ages over a sixty-six-year period, and was never caught (for murder). Included are some of the most famous murder cases in the past century.

 

About the Author

John Cameron is a cold-case detective and a former member of Great Falls Police Department.

I don't know whether the author is pulling everyone's leg but he seems to make a pretty good case. Maybe the Zodiac Killer was caught, just not for the Zodiac killings.

He did this 10 years + before the Zodiac killings. Who knows, maybe there is a connection there also. So the Zodiac was a copy cat killer...see, told you he wasn't brilliant...lol. He couldn't even think of his own methods.

originally posted by: Elijah23
Dyslexic genius perhaps... they might have looked correct to him. History is full of geniuses who suffered from dyslexia, or aspergers or dyslexia, or any other conditions that affect spelling but have no degrading effect of IQ

True, I have Dyslexia also.

I am becoming increasingly dependent upon those red squiggly lines.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: sparky31
what cause of his grammar he should have been caught? cause someone can,t write a sentence like their suppose to then they are inferior?hes managed to out smart the greatest minds so can,t be that thick.

The point the police were making was that because of his codes, he was very educated. That's why two people who were considered suspects had been very well-educated.

The Zodiac had an inflated ego and grandiose fantastical views of himself, so why would the Zodiac lower himself to making easy common mistakes, if he were well-educated.

Apparently he could draw, some postcards reflect that. So if he had the inflated self-ego, then it would have been psychologically difficult to present himself as having a lower intelligence, if he were educated.

who knows why he would do anything but he was obviously smart enough to never be caught.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I am almost convinced that Earl Van Best Jr is the Zodiac Killer and the spelling and other "mistakes" in the ciphers were probably done on purpose. He often threw a Z in to the mix.

After reading the book (Most Dangerous Animal of All by Gary Stewart: Earl Van Best Jr's son) I'm pretty convinced that this is possibly the zodiac killer. And unfortunately I also don't think that this case will ever be solved. Here's why, a homicide detective who has worked on the zodiac killer case and was married to a woman that a one time was married to the zodiac killer, just spin that around in your head for a minute, police protect their own.

Gary Stewart submitted the DNA tests years ago and those DNA tests have been destroyed. The date Judy and Gary Stewart called one of the detectives in SFPD to ask them for Earl Van Best's file, a lead homicide detective told them in a nutshell you don't want to know this is a heinous guy and it will tarnish your family forever what he did was hideous.

Coincidentally the zodiac killer case was closed on that same day. Coincidence possibly cover-up probably.

The fingerprints of Van Best and the Zodiac, notice the scar:



Image of Earl Van Best Jr and a composite of the Zodiac superimposed on each other.



Here's a thread of mine from a few months ago about Earl Van Best Jr.

Is This The Face Of The Zodiac Killer?

Below is the Zodiac Killer’s “my name is” cipher with my solution revealing the decoded message: “Earl Van Best Jr” (actually a reversed “Earl Best” prefaced by “Van” surrounding the word “Jr”). You’ll note that Earl Van Best’s name contains 10 unique characters while the cipher contains 8 unique characters – the reason for the discrepancy could be an ingenious cipher trick.

Best’s father was an expert military cryptographer in the Army. He taught Best cryptography and they often worked ciphers together as part of a childhood game. Cryptic ciphers were often included in Zodiac’s communications to police and the press. Many of the ciphers have never been solved.
Earl Van Best Jr.’s name (with purposeful misspellings, a common trait in the Zodiac’s ciphers) is found hidden in at least two of the Zodiac’s cryptograms and his partial name is found in several of the ciphers and cipher keys. In the July 31, 1969 cipher sent to the San Francisco Examiner, his name appears in the cipher and cipher key no less than eight times.
The count of letters in “Earl Van Best Jr” matches the count of the as-yet-unsolved “My name is: “ Zodiac cryptogram.

Below are some of the Zodiac Killer’s ciphers which reveal Best’s name (and variants of his name) several times in the cipher key and decoded message. “Van”, the name Best often went by, is most prominent in the decoded ciphers.

See more: Most Dangerous Animal of All

a reply to: Jennyfrenzy

That was really interesting information. I took a look at that link.

I thought there must have been some connection to Charles Manson and there was, through LeVay. Susan Atkins worked for LeVay and was an entertainer. So it is making more sense. This would be exactly the thing Van Best would be interested in.

I can see why you think Van Best would be the guy, but it probably goes a lot deeper than we know right now. I still think though that the direct reference to what happened to POWs in Bataan and the fact he used Germanic symbolism, he had a military background.

I think there was more than one guy writing the letters, so it may be possible that a group did the planning, and one was the executioner.

a reply to: WarminIndy

It has long been suggested that intentionally misspelling simple words was a gag. He thought it's funny. I've done it as well.

I think he was very intelligent, but not genius.

He wasn't caught because he killed in different jurisdictions creating confusion. Another smart move.

I have studied the case thoroughly, he was smart, but also the police were incompetent.

a reply to: Jennyfrenzy

I don't think a cop would care to bust his wife's ex husband. That's not police protecting their own.. that's sweet satisfaction.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: gwynnhwyfar
Always good to keep an open mind... Good luck with your investigations.
a reply to: WarminIndy

This is actually the first time I ever actually read about the Zodiac, even though I had heard about him many times. I just never paid much attention before.

There is a pretty damn good movie on the case "Zodiac." Came out in 08 or so (don't remember) has Robert Downey Jr. Scope it.

originally posted by: GogoVicMorrow
a reply to: WarminIndy

It has long been suggested that intentionally misspelling simple words was a gag. He thought it's funny. I've done it as well.

I think he was very intelligent, but not genius.

He wasn't caught because he killed in different jurisdictions creating confusion. Another smart move.

I have studied the case thoroughly, he was smart, but also the police were incompetent.

I think they were.

I saw a very poorly done documentary (which led me to looking for a better one) and the policeman who found the first couple, she wasn't dead yet but the policeman kept asking her to tell him what happened.

He could see she was about to die, but instead of helping her by some kind of first aid, like throwing his coat over her to keep her from going into shock, he pressed her into talking. If he had waited until she was able to talk, which is what most policemen do, then he could have gotten the information. To me, that was inappropriate.

Then another policeman who responded to another case, explains a whole conversation with the woman who was dying. They used up the little strength these women had. While the Zodiac inflicted those injuries, the policemen facilitated their deaths by forcing them to talk.

That was very hard for me to watch these policemen explaining them interviewing the dying women. I agree, very incompetent.

But then again, I am sure police methods were different back then.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I think I watched that because I was like.. "wait they were both alive when the cops arrived?" and then he talked about asking questions and I was wondering why they weren't wrapping jackets for compressions and carrying her to the squad car.

I know this case, and actually didn't know that she wasn't dead at the scene until that interview.

Just because someone makes spelling mistakes does not make them uneducated. Well it might, but there is a difference in intelligence and education. Often they go hand in hand. What about the people who do poorly in school because the pace moves too slow for them?

There are many reasons that could be possible for the spelling mistakes. Calling an uncaptured serial killer uneducated and dumb, strikes me as something NOT to do lol

a reply to: WarminIndy
If the guy's cipher could be broken he's a moron, Nazis had ciphers that if you didn't intercept the key or unless the key was used for more than one message was unbreakable. 26 letters turned into 2600 numbers is unbreakable, it's not a hard thing to accomplish.

2600 0001 1837 2478 etcetera.

Edward Edwards was the zodiac killer.

originally posted by: Trappenin
Just because someone makes spelling mistakes does not make them uneducated. Well it might, but there is a difference in intelligence and education. Often they go hand in hand. What about the people who do poorly in school because the pace moves too slow for them?

There are many reasons that could be possible for the spelling mistakes. Calling an uncaptured serial killer uneducated and dumb, strikes me as something NOT to do lol

Again, go by the educational standards of then, not now. And as a former English tutor in a liberal arts college, I have seen firsthand how "intelligent" people believe they are "educated".

As I said, in that time, the educational standards were higher. For him to make those mistakes then, means he was poorly educated for the time. Intelligence was measured in how much you grasped and how you expressed it. Today, the expression is how well you can use a computer or iPad.

The only thing he accomplished in this mayhem was remaining so nondescript that he could pass for anyone, because there were a lot of men who looked like that. I mean, think about it, his shoes for instance. He wore size 10 1/2 military grade Wing Walkers. That gives a big clue as to who he was. Then he was stupid because he didn't ensure that he killed all those he attacked, he left witnesses.

He didn't get caught because the police were inept.

I've looked at all the available data I could find on the case, but I've never actually investigated it or anything. I'm sure there is a lot I don't know. But my opinion has been that Arthur Allen was the killer. There were too many similarities. The search of one of his residences yielded the bomb-making diagrams he alluded to, as well as other things of that nature, he owned a knife with a riveted sheath that is quite similar to one described being used in an attack, the typewriter he owned fit the bill for the letters he typed and sent to the police, among other things. I think the most incriminating thing, aside from the things listed above, are his own statements. An acquaintance of his told police that Allen had made statements about killing people, and how he would do it, which are too similar to what actually took place to be ignored.

Adding everything up there are simply too many similarities. The main thing that "exonerated" him is the fact that later DNA tests that were done showed that the saliva obtained from one of the letters didn't match Allen. But I think that it didn't match because he didn't lick the letter. One of his letters, the only one with a partial palm print, was crumpled. I think the most obvious explanation is that, him understanding fingerprints, he wore gloves when writing letters, and thus this piece of paper was crumpled because someone else threw it away. He simply used it for a letter, probably to throw off police. People that knew Allen stated that he often liked to misspell words in an attempt at humor. I believe the using two x's in Christmas, or X-mas, was something they said he did as well.

He can also be placed in the general vicinity of some of the crimes. There is much damning evidence against the man, and the evidence for his guilt, although somewhat circumstantial, is still the best lead that exists. Again, statements he made to police during questioning seem to me like things a guilty person would say. I don't know how intelligent he was, but he was a school teacher. I don't know if you had to have a degree to do that back then. But I do think the misspellings are intentional, and thus are not good indicators of intelligence. The handwriting also differs between the handwritten letters, and there are the tell-tale signs of someone trying to mask their handwriting. These signs make me think it was one person rather than multiple people, as the differences in handwriting styles seems intentional. Some letters clearly show multiple start-stop points, which is a technique for trying to write in a different style. There are no connecting marks between letters, meaning the letters could have been deliberately and methodically styled. I think the killer was insane. He obviously had some mental issues, and this could potentially make certain things look like two different people as well.

originally posted by: GogoVicMorrow
a reply to: WarminIndy

I think I watched that because I was like.. "wait they were both alive when the cops arrived?" and then he talked about asking questions and I was wondering why they weren't wrapping jackets for compressions and carrying her to the squad car.

I know this case, and actually didn't know that she wasn't dead at the scene until that interview.

That was the first of a series of ineptness.

When he killed the taxi driver, the dispatcher said it was a black man. That's who they were looking for until they were told it was a white guy. Then, it took a newspaper reporter to find the pay phone.

The LA police did better at catching Richard Ramirez.

a reply to: JiggyPotamus

I saw his name also in the documentaries. Like I said in the OP, I don't know who did it, but I was just giving my opinions on what I thought about who did it.

If you think about it, how did he know those couples would be where they were? For him to just make a costume and then show up coincidentally at the Berryessa Park? That's just too coincidental, he must have been stalking them.

But also think about this, at Berryessa, he stabbed them while fishermen were on the water. They had to have seen something. That's from the man there, Martell I think his name is. He said right after this, they called to fishermen in their boats, the one boat stopped but they didn't help, they just went to the ranger station to report it. They must have seen it happen.

originally posted by: Jennyfrenzy
a reply to: WarminIndy

I am almost convinced that Earl Van Best Jr is the Zodiac Killer and the spelling and other "mistakes" in the ciphers were probably done on purpose. He often threw a Z in to the mix.

Go to zodiackiller.com. People who have very seriously researched the case for decades post there. I'm not one of them but I did spend some time reading the site. Earl Van Best Jr. doesn't even crack their top ten suspect list. I, personally, think the ciphers are gibberish. If you use enough contortions (pick letters from random lines, invert letters, etc.) you can find almost any name in them. However, if you want to believe in the ciphers, you can find Gaikowsky's nickname in it without any contortions. For a variety of quite convincing reasons, Gaikowsky is the top suspect.

Several people who had less than desirable fathers have written books claiming that their father was the Zodiac Killer. It's not enough that someone be a jerk and have similar handwriting as someone who almost certainly was disguising his handwriting. As for the fingerprint, the police don't even know that the fingerprint they found on the cab door belonged to the killer. After all, it was a cab and many people touched it. The drawing of the Zodiac suspect was, in itself, suspect. It doesn't match the description of several of the people who actually saw him and it was very amateurish. In fact, it doesn't have the correct relative proportions of the human face. Moreover, many men at that time would have matched the drawing (glasses of that type, crew-cut, etc.). A viable suspect has to be linked to most or all of the victims and the victims lived not only in San Francisco but elsewhere. Van Best doesn't meet that criteria. Gaikowsky does.

I read the book about Van Best and, after having read the website, found it unconvincing.

originally posted by: GogoVicMorrow

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: gwynnhwyfar
Always good to keep an open mind... Good luck with your investigations.
a reply to: WarminIndy

This is actually the first time I ever actually read about the Zodiac, even though I had heard about him many times. I just never paid much attention before.

There is a pretty damn good movie on the case "Zodiac." Came out in 08 or so (don't remember) has Robert Downey Jr. Scope it.

That is a good movie - they show it on AMC every so often.