Key Aspects of Zodiac's Letters - Essay Example

Analysis of the Zodiac’s letters Re: The Zodiac Killer letters. d: December 17, 2007. FORENSIC LINGUISTICS REPORT During the period from 1969 to 1974, an estimated number of about 37 people were killed by a killer who referred to himself as the “Zodiac”. The Zodiac killer was notable for the manner in which he confounded the police in the 60s with his letters about his crimes. Letters 1, 2 and 3 which are appended to this report are generally believed to have been written by the killer. It is now suggested that Letter no: 4, which was published in the San Francisco Chronicle dated May 4, 1974, may also be a letter written by the same killer. This Report will undertake a comparison of the four letters in order to determine whether or not it may also be a letter written by the “Zodiac Killer. Linguistics is the study of language and the letters sent by Zodiac constitute forensic text since they are association with crimes. According to Ephratt, “each specific text carries the fingerprints of its creator” because there is a variety of linguistic domains - from semantics to phonology - used in text, therefore each individual text is a representation of the choices the author of the text has made. (Olsson, 2004:13). Therefore, there is an assumption that all texts produced by one author will have certain lingual, structural and grammatical elements in common that will help to identify whether the same author has produced different texts. McMenamin states that the style of a single individual and a set of identifying characteristics found in the language can serve to establish authorship. The categories McMenamin uses to establish authorship include (a) format of page arrangement (b) punctuation – for instance, an author tends to use the same types of punctuation in similar proportions within a piece of text and (c) misspellings and the use of profanity (McMenamin, 1993:9). This may apply in the context of the four letters, since there are spelling errors and similarities that may exist between all of them and establish the common authorship by identifying a style common to all the letters. However, according to Olssen, where author recognition is concerned, it is useful to analyze keywords and high frequency word distribution but it is not really necessary to think in terms of unique style of the author of the text.(Olsson, 36). He suggests that the focus of the examination should be upon (a) how was the text created? (b) was there more than one author and (c) are there sections of the text that are stylistically different from each other? In this way, an attempt can be made to establish differences in text by distinguishing individuals from each other rather than establishing the uniqueness of each individual. In examining Letter no: 4 compared to the other letters, one important aspect to be considered is the symbol associated with the letters, which the Zodiac uses as his signature. The symbol in question is a circle with a cross drawn through it, which is the Celtic cross – an old Irish symbol, in which the circle represents the circular and enduring nature of the cross which is within it. A plain circle in itself was a pagan symbol representing the moon while the circle with the arms without is a symbol for the sun (Metalsmiths, n.d). The four directions of the arms of the cross suggests the four corners of the earth, while the horizontal and vertical arms coming together represents the joining together of the forces of Heaven and the earth. The Zodiac killer has used this symbol in his earlier letters, but letter number 4 does not carry this symbol, which is one significant aspect in which it differs from the earlier ones. There may be some significance in the Zodiac’s choice of the symbol. He has used it as his signature in the letter containing the cipher which is supposed to reveal his identity. The use of the celtic cross could indicate the English/ Irish/ Welsh background of the killer and his association with occult beliefs. The use of the celtic cross symbol is one of the notable distinguishing features which sets the killer distinctly apart. Added to this is the fact that the killer identifies himself as the “Zodiac” which represents the elliptical path of the sun across the constellations. There is a strong association and identification that the killer appears to place upon the symbol of the circle, which suggests a person overly concerned or obsessed with religious/occult ideas, which is also corroborated by the subject of his writings, where he views the people he killed as being his slaves in the afterlife. In further observing how the text was created, it may be noted that the person claiming to be the Zodiac killer has taken the trouble to prepare a three part elaborately encoded cipher which purportedly reveals his identity. This suggests that he is a person of some intelligence and education. Creating a cipher requires intelligence and patience. The letters are handwritten and Letters 1, 2 and 3 are printed neatly and legibly, also suggesting that the writer has been educated. The zodiac’s formal manner of writing in his earlier letters also suggests that he may be an educated person who has been taught basic manners and courtesy; for instance his use of “I am rather angry with the police” and “I shall” do this and rather, instead of using the more informal I’ll or “I’m mad at the police”. The language in the earlier letters is formal and grammatical, with capitalization appropriately done, in contrast with the third letter, where there are more spelling mistakes. The first two letters also show good punctuation, even semi colons are appropriately placed. Therefore there is a discordant note that may be observed in the large number of spelling mistakes that appear in the letters – especially in letters written by a person who appears to be conversant with the rules of grammar. One explanation for this could be either that the killer is an educated, literate person, who is deliberately mis-spelling words to convey a false impression. Otherwise it does not make sense for a person who seems educated to make such silly spelling mistakes like “triger” and “posibly” in letter 3. Does this provide an indication that a different person may have written letters 3 and 4? However, it must also be noted that some spelling mistakes are repeated throughout all the letters; thus there is a level of consistency which suggests that the same person may have written them. For instance, “Christmass” “lyeing” and “frunt” are among some of the words that are repeatedly mis-spelt in the same way in all the letters. The jokey postcard sent by the Zodiac also states: “could you print this new cipher on your frunt page?” Thus suggests that it may be a genuine mistake, rather than a manufactured one, giving rise to the inference that the same person may have written the letters. In letter 5, the word “control” is spelt correctly, all except at one place where it has been spelt as “controol.” This may be a case of intra-variation in spelling that occurs in the writings of the same author. For example, as Olsson points out, in some cases the amount of variation within just one author’s work – intra author variation – may be even greater than the variation that exists in the writing of different authors - inter author variation (Olson 2004:61). Therefore, the question of misspelling or the patterns of mis spelling per se may not be an indication that the author is a different one. In this respect, Letter 4 is different from Letters 1,2 and 3 because there are no spelling mistakes in it at all. The one word which was potentially mis-spelt – consternation, has however been slashed out and corrected. There is another place where a correction occurs – “expression” has been corrected down to “express”, suggesting that the writer of Letter no: 4 may have written the letter with greater care and attention to detail while writing and also read it over before sending it, especially since there are no instances of mis-spelling associated with the other letters. This does not necessarily lead to a definitive conclusion that Letter 4 has been written by another writer. As Olsson has shown through statistical analysis, intra-author variation may be even greater than variation between different authors. There are similarities that may be noted between the earlier letters and Letter no: 4, which suggest the same writer. One of these is the same kind of formal and bureaucratic style of writing, which was present in Letters 1 and 2, also appears in Letter no: 4. The same formal lexical style and mode of address are used; Letter 1 has its mode of address as “Dear Editor” Letter no: 3 starts as “Dear Melvin” and the fourth letter starts “Sirs.” Another example is the author’s tendency to use the plus symbol rather than writing it in alphabets is present in Letter no: 4: “your poor taste + lack of sympathy”, “public sensibilities + cut the add” and “Kit + Holly”. This trait of the writer may be noted right from the first letter itself. In Letter no: 1, the author writes: “Lake Herman + the girl last 4th of July”, “only I + the police know”, “The Vallejo Times + the S.F. Chronicle”. Similarly in Letter no: 2, there is a high incidence of use of the plus symbol: “me + my car”, Squealling tires + raceing engine”, ”shoot+hit my victims”, etc. The plus sigh appears in Letter no: 3 as well: “nineth + posibly tenth victim”, “dig in +the triger mech.” The writer appears to be almost obsessed with the use of the plus sign and it comes naturally to him. This is especially significant when considered in combination with the symbol used by the zodiac – the plus within the circle – the Celtic cross. Such a natural and compulsive tendency to use this symbol suggests that the writer of all four letters may be one and the same person. However, Olsson also suggests that when there is an enquiry containing multiple texts, as in this case with four letters, it may ultimately come down to the examination of one text because there is an indication of duality or dual person authorship, dual mode or register (Olsson, 2004:71). On this basis, Letter 4 becomes the exclusive source of focus, because there is a suggestion of duality by attribution of means. Differences exist in Letter 4, which may be strong enough to suggest that authorship may be attributed to another person. While the similarity of use of the plus sign is a significant indication of similarity, it is also possible that since the Zodiac’s earlier letters were published in the papers and are the source of common knowledge, it would have also been available to others who could be including that plus sign solely for the purpose of immediately and deliberately suggesting a link with the Zodiac killer. In this context, there is a dual register that is also suggested in the earlier letters. For example, the ciphers included with Letter no: 1, when uncoded, reveal a chilling, blood thirsty psyche. The killer appears to find it fun to kill and gets a high from it, not revealing the slightest trace of remorse or regret. The mood and tone in Letter no: 3 is much different from that in Letter One. This letter suggests that the writer is being compelled into heinous acts which he would much rather not be involved in. The third letter is a cry for help and a plea to prevent him from killing yet another victim. There is a strong possibility that letter nos: 1 and 3 have themselves not been written by the same person. The contents of letter 4 are also different from letters 1,2 and 3. For one thing, it does not open in the way the second and third letters do with the famous “This is the zodiac speaking” and there are no details about his victims or crimes provided in the letter. The letter is also signed off differently as “A citizen.” The sentiments expressed in this letter suggest that the writer abhors crime and killing, whereas the ciphers and text in Letter 1 present a picture of a blood thirsty killer. However, the style in which the sentiment is expressed does not suggest a genuine concern for the public; it appears to be a pontifical attempt to gain attention through a false display of concern. There appears to be a greater focus by the writer on how the letter will appear in print. There is a conscious effort to use important sounding words, as if the writer seeks to impress the audience with his language. There is a dual discourse underlying the letters, one and two suggest an enjoyment of killing, while Letters 3 and 4 express the opposite aim. Therefore, it appears questionable whether Letter no: 3 was written by the zodiac killer at all. A similar repulsion for crime and violence may be noted in Letter 4 as well, where the writer states “not that glorification of violence was ever justifiable”. This is in sharp contrast to the cipher in Letter 1 which says ”I like killing people because it is so much fun.” The dual register suggested between the first two letters and the last two appears to give rise to an inference that they may be the text of different writers. There are also some lexical differences that may be noted in the letters. In the first two letters, great care has been taken to keep the grammar formal. The lexical format in the first two letters leans more towards British English, in its use of words like “shall” and without using apostrophes at all. In Letter 2, the killer writes “when they do crack it, they will have me” and “I shall be very happy to supply even more material”. But in the third letter, the lexical form is different – it assumes a more Americanized form, as for example in the construction of the sentence “I cannot reach out because of this thing in me won’t let me” and “the one thing I ask of you is this, please help me.” The fourth letter is also lexically formal in style but it is different from all the other letters because it adopts the position of an onlooker and a concerned citizen. There are some higher level words used by the writer, such as “consternation” “glorification” deplorable” and “sensibilities”. The writer adds apostrophes – “why don’t you show some concern…?” It must also be noted that in Letters 3 and 4, the sentences used are generally shorter, while Letters 1 and 2 tend to use longer sentences. The general impression conveyed by the level of misspelling in Letters 1 and 2 is that of an educated person who is trying deliberately to assume a level of spelling that is lower than the actual levels. Letter 3 also provides a similar impression, because certain words appear deliberately misspelt, such as control – as if the writer in the process of writing had suddenly realized that he needed to write a wrong spelling and mis-spelt control without realizing that he had already spelt it correctly earlier. Letter 4 on the other hand appears to have been written by an educated person who appears to be pontificating and expressing a hypocritical concern for the public. Letter No: 1 is written in clear letters which are not joined and are slanted slightly to the right. The letters are evenly sized, unlike Letter no: 3 where the letters are unevenly sized and there are large gaps between the predominantly upright letters, some of which slant to the left. The cipher is presented in such a way that it is justified on the right margin as well, while the right margin in Letter no: 3 is gap toothed. The writing also does not appear to match to an unmistakable degree, although there are some similarities. While it is possible that Letter 3 may be written by the zodiac, the content of the letter suggests otherwise. Considering all the factors above, it cannot be conclusively stated that the letter no: 4 is also written by the Zodiac killer. In the first instance, the subject matter is completely different. All the other three letters, even No: 3 deal with crimes, while Letter 4 is objecting to an advertisement. There are no spelling mistakes at all in Letter no: 4. The lexical form and sentence construction are different. There is only one significant similarity between this letter (no: 4) and the other three, and this is the use of the plus symbol. While it may be argued that the same formal, British style of English is used in letter no: 4, this will not necessarily hold lead to the conclusion that it is written by the Zodiac. As Olsson has shown, sometimes the work of completely different writers show a closer correlation than works by the same author; therefore it is likely that the work of a completely different writer appears to bear a startling resemblance to the Zodiac’s. In fact, it is also questionable whether Letter no: 3 was written by the zodiac, especially when the content and style of the letters are taken into consideration. It appears unlikely that the creator of a cipher celebrating violence and killing would then write as if he were a victim forced into these heinous acts. However, Letter no: 3 still deals with a man committing crimes. Letter no: 4 veers off on a different track altogether and does not appear to be significantly related to the previous three letters, to attribute it to the Zodiac. References: * Metalsmiths, Walker, No Date. “Celtic Cross history and symbolism” Retrieved December 17, 2007 from: http://www.celtarts.com/celtic.htm * McMenamin, Gerald R, 1993. “Forensic Stylistics”, Amsterdam: Elsevier * Olsson, John, 2004. “Forensic Linguistics: An introduction to Language, Crime and the Law”, Continuum International Publishing Group Read More