Q&A with Mike Kelleher

This page is intended to supplement the Zodiac profile that appears elsewhere on this site, and to provide occasional updates from its author, Mike Kelleher.  As with the profile, all text is copyrighted and, at his request, this information is not to be used or reproduced without the author's permission. * * * Mike Kelleher:  In my profile, I wrote: "He [Zodiac] would have been in the Riverside area at the time of the Bates murder, although he was certainly not her killer."  Let me expand a bit on this point by mentioning that he very likely knew Bates' killer and had a personal relationship with him that began sometime before the crime. If one carefully reads my profile, it is a fairly simple process to understand why I believe this to be the case. Jake Wark: So, Z was a reactive type of personality, if I read you correctly -- reactive to articles in the papers, to current events, etc, and envied the limelight that other criminals got. If he knew Bates' killer, he would have said something like "I could do that. And I could do it better!" MK: Good work! You have found one of the keys to Zodiac's behavior, personality, and crime signature. The other one is the dissociative disorder. With this, you can begin to fill in the details that I left out in my general profile. JW: If the Zodiac didn't kill Bates, and the Local Boy did, why has this relatively simple murder remained unsolved for over 30 years? This one had it all -- a motive, a crime scene, a murder weapon, even a palm-print on the girl's front seat and handwriting samples on the "Confession" envelopes. So why hasn't he been indicted? MK: As I understand it, the Riverside PD had a very good suspect, interrogated him, and even had him in custody for a while. However, he was able to furnish an alibi, and the evidence from the crime scene was not conclusive.  He remained their favorite suspect. However, when Zodiac came on the scene, there was enough of a stir caused by Avery and others (plus the letter) that they looked at the case again in a new light. I am led to believe that this was a point of controversy within the RPD, in that some were convinced about their local suspect but could never make a complete case that would stand up in court. You mention motive in your question; however, I'm not at all sure that the motive was clear, depending on how you would view the primary suspect. It may or may not have been clear to investigators at the time. Another interesting point is the library re-creation that investigators arranged. In that case, they actually were able to come up with a partial description of the only missing person from the recreation (other than Bates), who was similar in appearance to their favorite suspect and not to later descriptions of Zodiac. Finally, although there was some crime scene evidence, and all the appearances of a relatively simple homicide, none of what was gathered at the scene or through the other elements of the investigation came together. I'd like to add more about the crime signature that was mentioned in alt.true-crime; however, that would be a much longer answer and not appropriate to your question. Suffice it to say that the Bates crime signature was quite different than Zodiac's crime signature, although the MO had some similarities. Since the MO and signature elements in a crime are quite different, this is an important point. One last point (sorry to be so long-winded). Today, about one third of all homicides go unsolved in the U.S. for a variety of reasons, even when a suspect is identified. In the mid-1960s this number was about 25%, so the Bates murder was not all that unusual in and of itself. JW: In the years of investigation subsequent to the ostensible link between the Bates murder and the Zodiac killings, why hadn't any of the investigators stumbled upon the boy who would be Z? Perhaps this is a bit much to expect from the cops, and speaks from 20/20 hindsight, but if the Local Boy was personally linked with Bates, and young-Z had a close relationship with the Local Boy, then he's only one step removed from both cases. MK: There is a bit of hindsight implied in your question, as well as linkage blindness on the part of investigators, which is not an unusual problem. Moreover, there is reason to believe that the RPD and SFPD did not cooperate as closely as they could have. In fact, this has been a notorious problem in California. A classic example of this kind of failure was the Richard Ramirez (Night Stalker) case that took place some twenty years later. Jurisdictional non-cooperation and rivalries are not uncommon in this part of the U.S. by any means. Also, the Bates killing was almost certainly an overt sexual homicide in the classic sense, whereas Zodiac's killings were asexual in their signature but perhaps repressed sexual attacks at their core. The Bates attack, and the contact between her and her murderer for some time before the attack, is something that Zodiac could not have tolerated. In fact, he was unable to significantly interact with his victims before the Lake Berryessa attack, which was well into his serial killing career. This is a fairly common scenario in which the organized serial killer craves an increasing level of control and domination as he evolves. Doug [Oswell] raised the point that an organized serial killer's first attack may be sloppy, and it is a good point. However, there are any number of examples of organized serial killers whose first attack is carefully planned through fantasy. That is one of the reasons that they are able to continue on with their lethal careers for a relatively long period of time. JW: Bearing in mind the Kinkead letter, which states that the victim's clothing was undisturbed, what are the circumstances of the Bates murder that lead you to believe that it was a sexual homicide? MK: Two aspects caught my attention, although I must say up front that this murder is not an overwhelmingly obvious sexual homicide. The first was the generous amount of time that Bates' killer spent with her. This is known as "lingering," and it can be one of the hallmarks of a sexual homicide, even if other, more obvious elements, are missing. The other is the nature of the attack itself, which was spontaneous and indicative of an angry, sexually-based assault. One example of this was the deep (and unnecessary) knife thrust to Bates' back after she was already on the ground. Compare this kind of behavior with Zodiac's crimes. Even at Lake Berryessa, which is the closest parallel to the Bates murder, control and containment were foremost in his mind. Just one example of this was his use of bindings. The Bates murder had no such element. In fact, it had little planning, unlike all of Zodiac's crimes. If one studies the Bates murder closely, one can almost feel the rage and anger that her killer expressed. This also points to a sexual homicide with overtones of deep frustration and resentment. However, even in the one instance in which Zodiac lingered with his victims and used a similar weapon, there was little evidence of rage or frustration. His murders were depersonalized, whereas the Bates murder was very personal. Also, there was evidence (provided by Hartnell) that Zodiac was becoming increasingly nervous during those few moments before he attacked. He was always uncomfortable spending time with his victims. This is very different from the rather long period of time that Bates' killer spent with her, which could be interpreted as having sexual overtones, although they were obviously covert. Bates' murderer wanted to spend time with her; perphaps he was looking for a sexual encounter that she turned aside. Zodiac wanted something very different from his victims, and it was not of a sexual nature. Now, having said this, there is an argument to be made that the Berryessa attack was a sexual homicide in that it may have had autoerotic characteristics. For example, suppose Zodiac stabbed the couple until orgasm. Would that make it a sexual homicide? I think not--at least not in the sense of the Bates' murder, which seems a very different crime to me because of the nature of the relationship between the murderer and the victim. JW: Could you give us a brief explanation of MO versus Signature in the Bates murder? Where would one end and the other begin? Parking close-by and luring the victim to an isolated spot would probably be MO, but what would be the signature? The verbal interchange? The overkill stabbing?  These are dissimilar to the Vallejo and SF attacks, but similar to the Berryessa attack. MK: The MO is the way the crime is carried out, which can change over time. In fact, with organized serial killers, the MO often evolves as he/she becomes better at their work. The MO would include parking close by, luring, etc., as you mentioned. Now, what you have to ask yourself is this: what did the killer want to get out of the crime? That is the signature, and it does not change from crime to crime. Beyond that, I would like to keep the rest for the book. However, I'm quite sure that you can figure it out. JW: I agree that the Bates murder definitely seems more spontaneous than the one at the lake, in which Z took definite steps to maintain control from the outset. Couldn't the Berryessa attack, with its restraints, be seen as an evolution of the first attack? And does the "Confession" letter count as Signature? How about the phone call that the killer mentions at the end of it -- that's definitely a Z trait. MK: The LB attack was a definite evolutionary step. It represented a definite change in MO, which was designed to enhance the experience Zodiac demanded from the signature of his crimes. Pay particular attention to how Zodiac presented himself, what he was wearing, what he said, etc. These were all "enhancements" to his former crimes and they all had a purpose. As to the phone call, it is an interesting point but not a conclusive one. In fact, this kind of behavior is not all that unusual from some kinds of killers.

Back To Index

Visit Mike Kelleher at

Send mail by clicking here