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

If there had been a "COPYcat" thread on here,
I would have posted my information there.

(But, since you didn't even notice he was a "COPYcat" killer/letter-writer,
there was no "COPYcat" thread for me to post it on.)

So, where was I supposed to put the information at.

MOD NOTE
...click here...you have a message

But I certainly do agree, he "was not as brilliant" as some people think.

There have been doubts the Zodiac killer even existed since day one, without the letters and phone calls little or nothing links any of the individual crimes. And the letters are full of errors and mistakes. The only really strong piece of evidence I can think of for the Zodiac killer actually existing is the piece of Paul Stines shirt, that is hard to explain, but not impossible - theunredacted.com...

Sorry, "Mod",
but I was not able to read your "message" to me,
because after reading your other messages to me,
I then cleaned out my inbox, before,
I saw that you had posted this "message" to me as well.

So I was unable to read, what your reply "message" was to me, in regard to that question I asked.
(If there is anyway possible, could you please "resend" that message to me, as I would like to know what your "reply" was, to that question I asked of you.)

Thank you very much, and have a great day.

[edited Private Message info]





NOTE...click here...you have a message

a reply to: theunredacted

(Am I allowed to "reply" to this posting,
or was this posting "off-topic" to begin with.) ??

(Knowing that this person was a "COPYcat" killer/letter-writer,
it can be "linked", in that way, as well.)

And by the way, this is only to say that, this is a "possibility":

(S.F. case)
"bloody piece of shirt TAIL",
was sent in shortly after.

Could it be "possible", that this had to do with,
this line, from the Jack the Ripper case:

"bloody piece of apron" (cut from apron that was thought to have belonged to victim)
was found shortly after.

[He would have a pretty hard time, finding a woman who was wearing an "apron".]

Is that where the shirt TAIL,
comes in at.
(Who knows.)

`````````
And "why" send that in, when:
He could have just as easily did what he did before ("to prove") he did a case:

Tell police:
What type of gun was used.
What type of ammo was used.
Where the victim's head was at.
Description of clothes victim was wearing.
(etc.)

[Which, by the way:
Looked amazingly similar to, what a
Police detective's crime-scene investigation report might look like.]

[What's the deal?
I mean, did he now (not have "access" to crime scene investigation reports,
like he "may" have had, in regard to Vallejo cases?)]

"Why" did he cut off a piece of victim's shirt tail,
and send it in, to begin with.

(Why did he feel the "need" to do that.)
(Or rather, "why" did he HAVE to do that, or think he HAD to do that),
in order to "prove", he did that case?

Or, did he do that, for some "other" reason.
(Besides just, 'proving', he did that case.)

(That is, "if" it WAS actually the killer of the cab driver, who cut that piece of shirt tail off. It was then sent in, with a letter.) (And assuming that the letter-writer was actually the killer, in these cases.) (The killer, in 'all' of, the cases.)

(As a note: I am not one who normally believes in "conspiracy theories."

I also have to keep in mind that:
Knowing that he was a "COPYcat" killer/letter-writer, knowing what cases he was COPYcatting
(and THOSE cases, commonly have a "conspiracy theory" (by some) attached to them),
it wouldn't be surprising to me if: He "tried" to get you to "believe", that one, too.
(i.e. Trying to "copycat" THAT element, too.)

"Jack the Ripper sent letters, poems, and ciphers. He gave clues to his identity."
[In his "letter" that he sent, in which he included "cipher".
And stated: "In this cipher, is my identity."]

* The person is "READING" this stuff. (Using it as a GUIDEBOOK.)

(Some peoples' "theory": "Maybe he was trying to draw something on the map.) (referring to, "invisible geometry")

He sent in: a "map", and he "drew" on it. (put the symbol that he used, on it.)

And surely he also came across the stated "conspiracy theories" (that people have a hard time dodging, when trying to "read" about the actual cases.) (Jack the Ripper) (JFK Assassination case.)

And then there was this, that you "commonly" see:

"Jack the Ripper may have been a mason."

"JFK may have been killed by masons and some police."

(So don't be surprised, if he 'tried' to include that type of "element" too, somewhere within his case.)

Because he was a "COPYcat".

[This is a "FACT".
Now maybe this will "help" you (all of you), and police, in trying to find out "who" this guy was.]

But I am not going to post any more.
(I have shared that info. with you.
Now I will sit "quietly", and just read the statements made by others, and see if I can find any "food for thought" info.)

Thank you for your time,
and I was only trying to "help".

(And on the flip-side of that, can't you understand that:
Until others can also see, that this guy was (in fact) a COPYcat killer,
how can I get any "help" in trying to find out "who" he was.
Of course, I am at a stand-still anyway, because noone knows "who" this guy was - anyway.)

Anyway, I provided the info. to police and FBI. (I did what I should have done/was supposed to do.)
And now it is, out of my hands.
THEY will have to find out who this COPYcat killer/letter-writer was. (That is their job. Not mine.)

But I am just letting you know that, he WAS a COPYcat killer/letter-writer.
(That is a "FACT".)

In regard to your own research, you might want to, "take another look".

[It could be possible that FBI and police were already aware, that this guy was doing COPYcat.
"If" that was the case, they sure were not going to tell you or the rest of the "public" about it.
I highly doubt they would have put THAT in the newspaper back then. (Jack the Ripper "COPYcatter" on the loose.) As for him, it could be possible that he was "hoping" they would put that in the newspaper.]

(Riverside case)

It seems to me that:
He already knew he was going to send in a letter
(before, he then did the case.)

Cuts her throat. Leaves her near the "alley".

Then sent in a letter, in which he tried to "talk like" Jack the Ripper.

Then says:
This should be published for all to read.

(And was doing his darndest, to be a horror "writer".)

(Including, using "Alliteration".

"b"eautiful "b"londe that "b"abysits.)

["Alliteration, is commonly used by writers.

It is especially useful for writing horror stories."]

(Zodiac letter:
I am collecting slaves for my afterlife.

I think that is just plumb hog-wash.]

(In the first letter, if the cipher was actually solved,
it was seemingly done for, "fun".
I can believe that one.) (One of the reasons, anyway.)

LATER, he tossed in the, collecting slaves (routine).

Main purpose of course, was so that the letters would keep getting into the newspaper.
(Not to mention, there is alot of competition, in regard to which stories get on the Front Page.)

Some have wondered if this guy may have worked at one of the newspapers.

(That was wondered about, in regard to the Jack the Ripper case, too.
Police questioned one guy, who worked at the newspaper. They thought he may have been sending in the letters.)

(I would imagine that this guy, the COPYcatter, was aware of that being stated in regard to the Jack the Ripper case.)

Anyway, the guy got a "fish on the hook".
(Found someone who would "publish" his stories, on the Front Page.)

San Francisco Chronicle, Paul "Averly".

``````
Interesting, that is where the last case was done at.
Doubly-interesting, if the guy didn't even live there.
What I mean is: Notice how it is "closer" now, to the doorsteps of, the San Francisco Chronicle.

(San Francisco.
The place that was doing all of the articles about the case.)

``````
(You reckon he may have gone to "Los Angeles" after that.) (Seeing as, he may have sent the letter to "Los Angeles Times".) (and to a radio station).
(Or maybe he came from there. Who knows.)

In reading about Los Angeles, I saw this stated:
"It is known as the media capital of the world."

(I doubt he lived in Los Angeles. But who knows.)

Because there were TWO cases done in Vallejo (and they were not that far apart. About 2-3 miles),
most people believe he may have lived in Vallejo. (But, who knows.)

Did cases in different areas (creating confusion, as to where he may have lived at.)
(But if that was the case, wouldn't it make it even more questionable, why)

he did TWO cases, in Vallejo area.

He did a little bit of traveling though. (Even if it was just for reason of, to do the case.)

(If he did the Riverside case)
For all we know, he may have lived in Riverside (and never left there. Still lived there.) Who knows.


[End of my statments.] Have a great day ...

a reply to: sparky31

As everyone knows, there are alot of "unsolved" murder cases, in which the killer was never caught.
(So I really doubt that is an 'indicator', that they are ALL, "smart".)

Seems that is most likely: Do not have the evidence, that points them in the direction of, "who" the killer was.

(Even if they do have a fingerprint, for example, it just might not "hit" in the system.)

(If they have DNA, it might not "hit" in the system.)

(Sometimes when a body is so decomposed, Medical Examiner is even unable to tell what the "cause" of death was.)
(And many times, are unable to identify the body. Don't even know who the victim was.That is when it is "really" rough.)

Let's face it folks, police sometimes have a "hard" job to do.

Unless they have something to go on, how can they just, "pull a serial killer - name - out-of-a-hat".

Not to mention, the D. A. needs some "evidence".

(This guy was not "brilliant". Wasn't even "smart". Not to mention, going around killing people is a "dumb" thing to do.
Sending in "handwritten" letters is even a "dumb" thing to do.)

No, this guy is just...one of the MANY, who have not been caught.

And look at all of the cases that were solved, like "30 years" later.
(due to, newer "technology".)

[When they are then "caught" (you then see who they are), it usually turns out that: They were not very intelligent.]

``````
Just about all (if, not all) made some type of "mistake".

This one did. (Zodiac case.)
What was it. Or rather, 'how many', were there.

Sometimes you don't know what they were, until, after they are "caught". Then you know it.

[Sometimes police make a mistake, but they (and you) do not know about it, until, after perp is caught.
For example: Dahmer case.
Police helped Dahmer bring the "victim" back into Dahmer's place.) (After Dahmer telling them: The guy is just drunk. This is a lover's quarrel.]

That right there was a "mistake" on Dahmer's part.
(The victim managed to make it to the street.
And now police are questioning him.)

Dennis Rader (BTK Strangler)
Killed a "neighbor" three doors down.
(That was NOT a 'smart' thing to do.)

Zodiac case:
(For starters): Pretty hard to try to say he was "smart",
when he was sending in "handwritten" letters.
(Right off the bat, it's looking pretty "dumb".)

a reply to: Billie2

Sending hand written letters wasn't that stupid. Especially in the 60's. Handwriting analysis is not good science, but back then "he" left no finger prints. The misspelled words were likely intentional.

Some believe the Zodiac murders are multiple unrelated murders.

The Original Nightstalker is probably the worst/best serial killer of all time. Of course there are new ones out there now always giving these guys a run for their money. When i say best though i'm referring to ones that take unnecessary risks as part of their mythos.

Bump....