I watched this on the DVD set a about a week or so ago, and what struck me more than anything was when renouned criminalogist Michael Rustigan said that while Zodiac was confrontational and up close and personal with his killings, the unibomber was impersonal and distant from his work. Rustigan used the great differences between their MO's to refute the possibility that they were one in the same. He said something to the likes of "Why would a hands-on killer into shootings and stabbings suddenly change his methods and utilize explosive booby traps?".

Why? A better question would be, why not? My answer to his question came to me right after he said this, I did not have to think hard. A random killer would change his MO entirely as a means to throw the public and the authorities off, making them think he has stopped while a new one has emerged. Given how an expert like Rustigan obviously doubts that this would happen is all the more reason that the killer in question it would make it happen. And all the better to elude capture, as Ted Kazcynski(sp?) was never charged with the crimes of the Zodiac to the best of my knowledge, only those of the Unibomber as that was all he could be connected to.

That is only my 2 cents. Has this ever been talked about here?

I remember a previous thread discussing this, probably w/in the past year...I'm too lazy right now to search for it.

I encourage you to look at ZodiacKiller.com (http://www.zodiackiller.com/index2.html), which is a very very thorough website presenting evidence for and against all major Zodiac suspects. The website itself was featured on A&E's Cold Case Files as THE place to go for Zodiac info and discussion.

While I don't think Kaczynski is the Zodiac, I do agree that investigators can miss a lot if they refuse to entertain the possibility that a serial killer can change MOs.

A random killer would change his MO entirely as a means to throw the public and the authorities off, making them think he has stopped while a new one has emerged.

I agree completely. Has every serial killer always murdered his victims in the exact same way? When I saw this segment on the DVD set, and heard the pontifications of this "expert," I immediately thought of Dennis Rader, aka "The BTK Killer." Although his MO was largely the same, it wasn't exactly the same every time. For that matter, neither was Zodiac's -- sometimes he did his deadly deeds with a gun; at other times, he used a knife. Indeed, the more intelligent the killer, the more likely that he would switch gears to avoid detection. If you want to have nightmares (or not sleep at all), consider the possibility that many unsolved murders have been committed by such highly intelligent serial killers, who simply morph from one murderous methodology into another as opportunities present themselves. Perhaps there are hundreds or even thousands of such lunatics walking among us! :eek: Now that's scarier that the Unsolved Mysteries theme music!

While I don't think Kaczynski is the Zodiac, I do agree that investigators can miss a lot if they refuse to entertain the possibility that a serial killer can change MOs.

You are right about the Zodiac files -- it is a very comprehensive site, and well worth a visit. As far as the Zodiac-Unabomber connection, interested persons should check out The Zodiac-Unabomber Connection (http://mysite.verizon.net/douglas.oswell/index.html). There is much fascinating stuff on that site. I consider myself an "agnostic" on the Zodiac-Unabomber issue. I think it's a compelling concept, and I think there's some interesting evidence, but not enough for me to agree with the hypothesis just yet.

Living here in California, where the crimes of the Zodiac occurred, I have an open mind that there is a slight possibility that a mastermind of murder can change his/her MO. I am not a criminal, far from it, but if the "profile" of a killer is announced, as it has been on the Zodiac, then who are the detectives to say that person may have decided to be "one step ahead" and throw a wet towel on the fire and totally change his method of killing? There have been many cases where killers admitted to killing a person(s) and the police had no idea the murdered person was even linked with a specific killer. I believe in that theory of killers changing their MO. There is always a first for everything. I have researched alot abt the Zodiac just out of curiosity and it's a very scary thing. I remember when I was young and I had first heard of the crime. I remember my family discussing it when the crimes occurred. I believe my father was watching a news report on t.v. and I recall trying to figure out what was being said. I got so scared because my family didn't know I was listening.

I love to look at things in reverse to isolate reality. So ask yourself, when the high profile search for the Unabomber was underway, did ANYONE ever propose he might also be the Zodiac. Ha. No chance. They only reached for a connection after Kaczynski was caught and his Berkeley connections matched the general locale and time frame as Zodiac.

I'd be willing go go much higher than 100/1 against this one. The writings don't pretend to match, in grammar, tone or style. The use of "who" or "that" in referring to a person is predictably opposite. The educated Kaczynski gets it right, using "who", every single time in the huge segments of his manuscript that I've read. The Zodiac predictably botches it time and again, which is typical of the general populus and especially the uneducated. Even in his call from a pay phone after a murder Zodiac is quoted as saying, "I'm the one THAT did it." It may seem like a minor point, but in my experience that usage is very revealing and difficult to consciously alter, in print or especially speech.

I am not a criminal, far from it, but if the "profile" of a killer is announced, as it has been on the Zodiac, then who are the detectives to say that person may have decided to be "one step ahead" and throw a wet towel on the fire and totally change his method of killing?

You know, I've actually brought this up on the board before in an old thread about the "Orange Socks" case, about how profiling only selects on criminals who get caught:
"Orange Socks" comments (http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?p=2561026#post2561026)
"This comment brings up something I've been thinking about lately. Most of what we know about serial killers is from the FBI, their profilers, and the serial killers they've caught. I think any detective would tell you that it's easier to catch a serial killer who has uses the same MO every time. But what about those other serial killers who vary their MO, and are less likely to be caught or recognized as serial killers? I think many of us are very quick to assume certain things about serial killers, but they're really only characteristics that the "caught" serial killers are statistically more likely to have."

I love to look at things in reverse to isolate reality. So ask yourself, when the high profile search for the Unabomber was underway, did ANYONE ever propose he might also be the Zodiac. Ha. No chance. They only reached for a connection after Kaczynski was caught and his Berkeley connections matched the general locale and time frame as Zodiac.

I'd be willing go go much higher than 100/1 against this one. The writings don't pretend to match, in grammar, tone or style. The use of "who" or "that" in referring to a person is predictably opposite. The educated Kaczynski gets it right, using "who", every single time in the huge segments of his manuscript that I've read. The Zodiac predictably botches it time and again, which is typical of the general populus and especially the uneducated. Even in his call from a pay phone after a murder Zodiac is quoted as saying, "I'm the one THAT did it." It may seem like a minor point, but in my experience that usage is very revealing and difficult to consciously alter, in print or especially speech.
You know, you may find this funny, but when I handwrite, I tend to change my handwriting skills. It depends on whether I am in a hurry to write something, or have all the time in the world, but my penmanship is not always the same, so why would the FBI or any law enforcement official think a serial killer's writing has to be the same?
I have at least three different ways of forming my letter "F" in handwriting.
The Orange Socks case is a very good example of MO's being different.
I mean, come on, if you were committing a series of crimes, regardless of the type of crime, and it was announced the criminal has a habit of committing their crimes around midnight on Wednesdays, wouldn't you then commit the same crime on a different hour or day to throw the cops off? No common sense there....

You know, you may find this funny, but when I handwrite, I tend to change my handwriting skills. It depends on whether I am in a hurry to write something, or have all the time in the world, but my penmanship is not always the same, so why would the FBI or any law enforcement official think a serial killer's writing has to be the same?
I have at least three different ways of forming my letter "F" in handwriting.
The Orange Socks case is a very good example of MO's being different.
I mean, come on, if you were committing a series of crimes, regardless of the type of crime, and it was announced the criminal has a habit of committing their crimes around midnight on Wednesdays, wouldn't you then commit the same crime on a different hour or day to throw the cops off? No common sense there....

I didn't say anything about penmanship. I mentioned grammar, tone and style. Everyone has a unique manner of expressing themself, tending to utilize the same words, phrases, punctuation, etc. It's an increasingly sophisticated and accepted field of analysis. The book "Primary Colors" was written by Anonymous until someone did a study of its style and correctly outed Newsweek writer Joe Klein as the author.

The first aspect I checked in the Zodiac/Kaczynski connection was "who" and "that," as I mentioned. If it had not provided a difference there were two more I wanted to look at. But it was clear from the outset these were two different men. Zodiac erratically uses "who" and "that" almost evenly, sometimes using both references in the same letter. Then I looked at Kaczynski's manuscript and a few letters, all available on the internet including Court TV's site. Predictably, the very well schooled Kaczynski used "who" correctly every time. I counted the first 50 references and then stopped, satisfied with the sample size.

I didn't say anything about penmanship. I mentioned grammar, tone and style. Everyone has a unique manner of expressing themself, tending to utilize the same words, phrases, punctuation, etc. It's an increasingly sophisticated and accepted field of analysis. The book "Primary Colors" was written by Anonymous until someone did a study of its style and correctly outed Newsweek writer Joe Klein as the author.

The first aspect I checked in the Zodiac/Kaczynski connection was "who" and "that," as I mentioned. If it had not provided a difference there were two more I wanted to look at. But it was clear from the outset these were two different men. Zodiac erratically uses "who" and "that" almost evenly, sometimes using both references in the same letter. Then I looked at Kaczynski's manuscript and a few letters, all available on the internet including Court TV's site. Predictably, the very well schooled Kaczynski used "who" correctly every time. I counted the first 50 references and then stopped, satisfied with the sample size.
I never said that you said anthing abt penmanship. I threw that in because when criminals leave behind evidence such as letters, notes, etc. their handwriting is analyzed. When they have a suspect, they will compare that suspect's handwriting with the evidence they have. That's all. don't get upset at my input.

I never said that you said anthing abt penmanship. I threw that in because when criminals leave behind evidence such as letters, notes, etc. their handwriting is analyzed. When they have a suspect, they will compare that suspect's handwriting with the evidence they have. That's all. don't get upset at my input.

I appreciated your input. I don't know why you thought I didn't. Maybe I need to use smilies more. Mostly I was surprised no one commented on the difference in "who" and "that" in this case. IMO, it's very interesting at a minimum, and perhaps game/set/match.

And I completely agree about penmanship. My writing and my penmanship can vary so dramatically it's not unheard of for tellers, etc. to ask me to repeat my signature. I had plenty of Zodiac handwritten letters to look at on zodiackiller.com, but Kaczynski's writings and manuscripts were all in text form.