Jack or the Zodiac?

[Esther Wilson]

My main interest has and always will be Jack the Ripper. But my top 3 cases that I follow are...

Jack the Ripper
Black Dahlia
The Zodiac

Esther

[pmerryman]

I started out reading all the murder casebooks, which got me into Jack the Ripper.
But I read the Zodiac last year whilst on holiday, and watched the film also.

JTR will always have that little place in my heart when it comes to a serial killer.

[sdreid]

Zodiac is of interest to me but it's a little farther down on my list. For me, the atmospheric creep factor works best in unsolved cases 50-150 years old.

[Ryan_Miller]

Both cases are so mysterious and inifinitely interesting that they almost seem to be the product of a magnificient fictional writer. It's hard to imagine that all the plot twists and unknowns are "real".

When I think about the large number of suspects, the lack of knowledge about several of the victims, the letters, the graffiti, the rumors, the theories, the locations, etc it is overwhelming! I think one thing that helps draw us to these cases is that these are the real life happenings of what would otherwise be an incredible fictional crime/mystery novel.

Back to the original question at hand though... I have to say the Ripper is the most sadistic and dangerous of the two! We need to contact the people that create the Celebrity Deathmatches and try to set up a Ripper vs. Zodiac Death Match!!!

[choop]

Hi all. I may be one of the few on here that places Z as the killer that holds the most interest to me. I became interested in The Ripper when I was a teenager and then learned about Z a few years later. I think I relate to the Z mythos better because I grew up in Central California. Heck, my mom remembers being bused to school with police escorts after Z threatened to shoot kids "as they came bouncing out" of a school bus.

If anyone is interested one of my favorite books of all time is "This is The Zodiac Speaking" by Mike Kelleher and David Van Nuys. It's an INCREDIBLE study of the mind of a serial killer. I've actually also spoken at length with Mike about a pet book project of mine that would put a fictional but fact based spin on Z written by Z himself.... actually written by me of course, I'm not that crazy....lol.

If anyone has any interests in the Z case or any questions about Z feel free to shoot them my way. I know a bit about Jack but I consider myself a Z scholar.

I guess this was an odd first post but I look forward to enjoying this site and the discussion. Thanks.

[smezenen]

Forensic psychiatrist Michael Stone developed a scale of evil from 1-22.
He has a TV show here in America on the investigation discovery channel where he profiles evil people. Here are some of the profiles he has done.

Dennis Rader, John Wayne Gacy, Tommy Lynn Sells, Charles Ng , Leonard Lake , Paul Bernardo, Ian Brady, Gary Heidnik, Jeffrey Dahmer , David Parker Ray , Westley Allan Dodd, Richard Kuklinski, Jim Jones, Adolfo Constanzo, Jeff Lundgren, Andrei Chikatilo, Edmund Kemper, and the Black Dahlia murderer (new evidence suggests George Hodel) all rated 22.

Interestingly Charles Manson rated 15, Ed Gein 13, David Berkowitz (Son of Sam), and Ted Bundy both rated only 17. And Gary Ridgway rated 18.

Here is a link to his category list http://investigation.discovery.com/t...vil-scale.html

Using this scale we can rate both Zodiac and Jack. To place them we only have to define them so I will use what has already been stated here in this thread. I’m pasting from many posts here so I hope no one takes offence if I don’t give references.

Zodiac- highly organized Sociopathic Megalomaniac, got a kick out of reading about his crimes in the newspapers and out of terrifying an entire city, indiscriminate killer, killed both men and women, death of victim is primary motive.

Although terrorism of the public is involved in this case, the only category for that on the scale stops short of actual murder therefore the highest category Zodiac falls into is 16 Psychopaths committing multiple vicious acts.

JTR- possible sexual sadist, indiscriminate killer, mutilator, death of victim is incidental.

Without proof of sexual behavior jack rates as a 20 Torture murderers with torture as the primary motive but in psychotic personalities.
Prove that sexual acts where performed and he is Rated 22 Psychopathic torture-murderers, with torture their primary motive, sexual homicide

Based on these observations Mr. Stones scale places Jack as the more evil of the two. however without knowing the true identity of either killer we can not absolutly place them on any scale.

[Doug Irvine]

JtR only killed prostitutes. So unless you happened to be a prostitute you didn't have much to fear from JtR. The Zodiac, especially to wards the end, would kill anyone. So I have to go with the Zodiac being the most terrifying.

[Malcolm X]

JTR is the sickest, but Zodiac far more charismatic/ Articulate/adaptable and of course he varied his MO enormously

mind you, if HUTCH was the Ripper; then this changes everything.

[kensei]

I am currently reading "Will the Real Mary Kelly..." by Christopher Scott and "Zodiac Unmasked" by Robert Graysmith at the same time. It's quite a combination.

I think that JTR stirred more terror in that he was limited to a specific section of London, and Eastenders knew he might be out there on the streets at any time, whereas Zodiac preyed upon a region containing a few million people so even though he was not so specific in his choice of victims, the people would have known that the odds of being killed by Zodiac were comparable to being struck by lightning.

I have a special affection for the movie "Zodiac" because I saw it on the heels of the fictionalized "Black Dahlia" movie which I thought was just awful and had no respect at all for its victim. In comparison, I applauded "Zodiac" as being one of the few true crime serial killer movies to "get it right," and be true to the details of the case (though I understand there were certain artistic licenses taken as there are in all fact-based movies). Critics said the movie dragged and became tedious in the middle, but that's exactly how real criminal cases are. Plus, the fact that the main suspect (Arthur Leigh Allen) was played by the guy who played the cross-dressing older brother on "The Drew Carey Show" (John Carroll Lynch) was such a good laugh, but he was actually quite a good likeness. Michael Chiklis might have been another good choice.

Personally, I am leaning powerfully in the direction of Leigh Allen having been the Zodiac. So all the real evidence against him is circumstancial. Why is "circumstancial" synonymous with "worthless" when there is a mountain of it? The fingerprint on the shell casing didn't match. That print was used to rule out suspect after suspect but it was never proven that it was left by the killer. The head handwriting analyst said Allen's writing didn't match Zodiac's, but a student of his who'd gone on to work in the field said hold on, I'm not so sure, do not rule this suspect out based on handwriting. A DNA sample supposedly rules Allen out. But I wonder- could he have had other people lick his stamps and envelopes for him, as did the Yosemite Park killer Carey Stayner in 1999. The first OJ Simpson jury found OJ not guilty in spite of positive DNA evidence. Could it somehow work in reverse? There are too many "circumstancial" pieces of evidence against Allen to list here. No other suspect ever came close. And the survivor of the July 4, 1969 shooting did eventually i.d. Allen as being the man who shot him, though many years later.

I say, what do Jack the Ripper and the Zodiac have in common? They're both dead.

[caz]

I think that JTR stirred more terror in that he was limited to a specific section of London...

Hi Kensei,

In the 'scale of evil' sense, however, it would seem from some of today's theorists that Jack was not consciously stirring more terror in this way, but simply had no personal choice in the matter. He was apparently stuck with concentrating and ratcheting up the terror in one small area whether he liked it or not, and would much sooner have spread himself and his victims out more after the first or second, even if it meant easing the terror right off in the process.

Apparently he would have looked bemused at the suggestion that more terror could be created in such a way, and not just be an incidental by-product, or unintended side effect, of the risks he was taking anyway, right up until the November. Even more bemused that anyone like him might weigh up the risks against the extra terror gained and find the prospect too attractive to resist.

I'm not one of those theorists, by the way, in case anyone wonders.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

He was apparently stuck with concentrating and ratcheting up the terror in one small area whether he liked it or not

Which, considering the limited transport options that existed back then, in contrast to today, is by no means an unreasonable suggestion. Quite the reverse. Generally speaking, the rather more rare "commuter" serial killer will have the transport to sample various murder and disposal locations, as opposed to doing both of those things within a concentrated locality that he "commutes" to from afar.

Best regards,
Ben

[JacknJill]

Triple Case

I've spent years learning about JTR aswell as Zodiac, and also - Ted Bundy. I'm positive you would all know who he was. My three favourite serial killers. As for Jack or Zodiac... They're both brilliant killers and both intriguing and surrounded in mystery. I'd vote that they were equal.

[truebluedub]

That Michael Stone scale of evil sounds a lot like the F-scale, before Stanley Milgram's obedience to authority experiments this was taken as the indicator for a fascist personality.
I wonder where Dr Stone's namesake the British terrorist would appear on either scale.

Chris Lowe

[celee]

Lately I've taken a great interest in the Zodiac Killer case, which is America's version of Jack the Ripper--both involve taunting letters, a sinister modus operandi, and are still unsolved. Which in your opinion is the more frightening of the two killers? I vote for the Zodiac. Even though Jack was more savage, the Zodiac in some ways was colder, darker, more brilliant. He killed men as well as women. Like JTR his killings inexplicably stopped after five, though he continued for years to write those frightening letters. Doesn't this prove the Zodiac had a sicker and more dangerous mind?

Zodiac would be the scariest. Jack killed a specific group. The Zodiac killed whoever struck his fancy. I have often wondered if the Son of Sam killer was not a copy cat of the Zodiac. The Zodiac once called himself Sam so son of Sam..... and the killings were similiar.

Your friend, Brad

[kensei]

Zodiac would be the scariest. Jack killed a specific group. The Zodiac killed whoever struck his fancy. I have often wondered if the Son of Sam killer was not a copy cat of the Zodiac. The Zodiac once called himself Sam so son of Sam..... and the killings were similiar.

Your friend, Brad

Oh, I have read way too many serial killer books. I think you refer to when Zodiac supposedly called a tv talk show to talk to attorney Melvin Belli and referred to himself as Sam, but that was found to have been a mental hospital patient and not really Zodiac. Of course that could still have been used by a copycat as inspiration, but I think it was fairly well established where the name "Son of Sam" came from- Sam Carr, who lived near David Berkowitz and whose dog Berkowitz claimed had barked orders to kill at him.