Foreword to "This is the Zodiac Speaking"

David Van Nuys is Chair of the Psychology Department at Sonoma State University in Northern California. He serves on the board of directors of Division 32 (Humanistic Psychology) of the American Psychological Association. Van Nuys earned his doctorate in clinical psychology from the University of Michigan and has worked as a licensed psychotherapist in both New Hampshire and California. A frequent public speaker, he has also published in professional journals, popular magazines and was the author of a nationally syndicated newspaper column. In addition to his university teaching, Van Nuys is President of e-FocusGroups, a market research consulting firm.  Since 1998, he has been researching the case with Mike Kelleher for their collaborative work, This is the Zodiac Speaking: Into the Mind of a Serial Killer. * * *  The following text is Copyright 2001, David Van Nuys, Ph. D. (All rights reserved) As chair of a rather unique psychology department, I've become accustomed to receiving unusual requests over the telephone and by mail. However, this one came to me by e-mail. The sender claimed to be working on a book about a serial killer and wondered if I would be willing to read and analyze a number of letters the perpetrator had written to newspapers and the police. Uncertain of what I might bring to the project, I suggested that my correspondent e-mail me the first letter. I would do whatever I could with it and send it back to him for his reaction and, then, we'd see if it made sense to proceed together. After reading my analysis of that first letter, he was eager to continue because, independently, without any background knowledge of the details of the case, I had drawn conclusions very similar to his own. And so, the chase was on. We agreed that he would continue to send me the letters via e-mail, one at a time. I would be blind to all the forensic details of the case, except for any information he felt I might need in order to understand the context of a given letter. In fact, I did not even know it was the infamous Zodiac case we were working on until the killer started using his trademark signature several letters into the series. In addition, my new collaborator and I did not have a face-to-face meeting until I had read and analyzed all the letters. Family and friends found it curious and disturbing that I should be caught up in such a macabre project with someone whom I'd never met in person. Perhaps, he, himself, was the serial killer, they conjectured. I must admit, the thought had crossed my mind. However, I was to be pleasantly surprised. A few weeks into the project, I learned that his latest book, Murder Most Rare: The Female Serial Killer, was the subject of a four-page review in The New Yorker and had just sold out its first edition after being on the market for less than a month. I decided that my collaborator was definitely legit. In fact, I came to realize that Michael Kelleher is a consummate professional, both as a criminologist and as a writer. He loves writing and throws himself into it with amazing passion. He is an incredibly fast worker. It was all I could do to keep up with him, even though my own share of the writing task was much smaller. I also found him to be a careful and methodical analyst, quickly putting his finger on contradictions or details that I had overlooked or forgotten. His follow-up queries to my work would push me to think deeper and more carefully. He was always very open and generous, inviting my full participation in the project and making himself available as both a colleague and a friend. Despite the grizzly content of our focus, this project was something of an adventure because it represented a fresh direction for my work. Also, I suppose Zodiac's hubris was a bit infectious because there were times when I felt that if only Michael and I had been on the case 30 years sooner, we might have helped apprehend him. I felt very caught up in the chase, wanting to nail down certain mythological and theatrical references that cropped up in the killer’s letters. At times, these ideas had me prowling the World Wide Web in the wee hours and corresponding via e-mail with an amazing array of experts around the globe, feeling I was just about to close in on some vital details that might reveal more about Zodiac's early years and influences. Amidst this personal excitement, however, I had to remind myself that, while this was an adventure for me, it was quite otherwise for the victims of Zodiac thirty years ago. I'm sure the pain and horror still linger for the survivors of his attacks, as well as for the families and friends of his victims. I have to say that Zodiac's final letters led me to a diagnostic conclusion that was totally unanticipated. I realize that it is likely to be a controversial conclusion in some quarters. I can only say that I did not set out with any preconceived ideas about serial killers in general, or this case specifically. The facts of the case and the fragmentary glimpses of Zodiac's psychodynamics that came through his letters forced me, reluctantly, to draw a conclusion that I knew would be controversial. To the extent that I have been able to shed any light on the mind of Zodiac, I must give credit to the psychoanalytically-oriented training that I received at the University of Michigan, my subsequent explorations in Jungian psychology inspired by psychology department colleagues at Sonoma State University, and the experience gained over the years from those who allowed me to work with them as their psychotherapist. In addition, my studies of altered states of consciousness, especially hypnosis and dreaming, have provided a laboratory for gaining some insight into the workings of the unconscious. If I have learned anything from all of this, it is that we are all cut from the same cloth. If we are to understand Zodiac, we must be willing to face the darker side of our own selves. David Van Nuys, Ph.D. Chair, Psychology Department Sonoma State University

All text on this page Copyright David Van Nuys.  

Back To Index