Doug wrote:AK, that's hilarious! At the very least it shows that he got my letter. Now why, if he's so concerned about being accused of the Zodiac crimes, didn't he alibi himself? Heaven knows there are plenty of documents, or people who could corroborate an alibi. And where does he get the "kook" appellation from? My letter was stated very rationally and did not accused him of being the Zodiac. As the letter (dated 2001) states:
There is an advantage to you in this. The entire world is aware that you have risked your life to disprove the notion that the Unabomber’s actions were not philosophically motivated, but simply the result of a deviant or warped psychology. I must frankly tell you that the postulated linkage between Zodiac and the Unabomber has grown and persisted in the past five years. Indeed, it shows signs of strengthening in the years to come. I fear that if this theory is not thoroughly refuted, posterity will know the Unabomber not for his principled stand against technology, but for his similarity to a sick and sordid criminal who murdered minor children to assuage his sexual frustrations and shore up a foundering ego. The Zodiac Killer is widely known as “America’s Jack the Ripper.” The Unabomber is fast becoming the “favorite suspect" in a mystery that, because it remains unsolved, will endure for many years to come. You alone can divest him of that distinction.
Now that's really kooky, isn't it? In fact, Kaczynski's words in this letter display the same offhanded, casual tone with which he dismisses the Tylenol case. It's the same tone with which he dismissed the very credible (in my opinion) allegations made by Chris Waites that he tortured Waites's dogs to death. The trouble is, it's not very like Kaczynski, the rationalist who has an advanced line of argumentation for everything he wishes to contest. Kaczynski, the mathematician, for whom hard, real-world proofs are everything. If he had an alibi, why didn't he offer it? Especially when, as I made it clear to him in my letter of 2001, the world would come to associate him with something that he professed he would rather die than have attributed to him, namely, the appellation of a "sicko?"
Excellent points Doug.
Ted wrote a multi page letter to his mother, some thirty years after the fact, concerning an incident in which she yelled at him for having a messy room as a boy. He used references to psychological studies and other facts and pointed out she should have accepted boys will be somewhat messy, and quoted scientific studies on how emotional abuse can stunt physical growth.
He has also written multiple page letters to those who question a point in his manifesto, even on a minor issue!
The point is, Ted will respond to trivial matters with a full batch of evdience and arguments, yet someone asks him about being the psychopath Zodiac and he dismisses it with the casual one liner "Law enforcement authorities concluded I was not the Zodiac."
LINDA I can't read anything else on the envelope. Perhaps you could write to the owner saying we as a group or individuals within the group may be interested in buying it, and can we please have the full text of the letter?
Looking at this next response from KITE, remember that the letter from Oswell was sent in 2001, with Kaczynski's letter mentioning it dated 2005, also remember that Kathleen Johns was abducted and escaped in MARCH 1970 or 3/22/70, with Zodiac writing about it in JULY 1970 on 7/24/70.
KITE: In this letter Kaczynski writes: (A FEW YEARS BACK some kook wrote to me claiming I was Zodiac)
In a 7/24/70 Zodiac letter:......(...that I gave a rather interesting ride for a coupple of howers one evening A FEW MONTHS BACK that ended in my burning her car where I found them)
Isn't it also true that in both cases A FEW meant roughly four?
AK WILKS: Yes it does appear that Kaczynski uses a "A FEW YEARS BACK" to mean FOUR years, and Zodiac used the identical phrase "A FEW MONTHS BACK" to also mean FOUR months.
