CO CO - TED KACZYNSKI, The Unabomber 1980's-'90's

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

bessie

bessie

Verified Insider
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
31,771
Reaction score
1,707
Report details Unabomber's handwritten prison correspondence
Updated 5:11 am, Monday, January 25, 2016

FLORENCE, Colo. (AP) — In handwritten letters to hundreds of supporters and curiosity seekers, Unabomber Ted Kaczynski expressed shock over the 9/11 attacks and wrote that he preferred Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic presidential race.

Kaczynski also wrote to pen pals from federal prison in Colorado asking for more information about Osama bin Laden and the origins of al-Qaida, and has relied on others to inform him about the rise of the Internet and social media.

The correspondence was described in a report published by Yahoo News (http://www.yahoo.com/unabomber) early Monday. Yahoo News reporter Holly Bailey spent several weeks looking through Kaczynski's letters, which now fill more than 90 boxes at the University of Michigan Library.

The Labadie Collection, a special division of the library that documents the history of social protest movements, contacted him after his arrest to see if he would consider donating his writings. Kaczynski did not respond to a letter from Yahoo News asking why he has maintained the archive through the library.
 
Letters from a serial killer: Inside the Unabomber archive
By Holly Bailey
5 hours ago
Yahoo News

It has been almost 20 years since Ted Kaczynski’s trail of terror came to an end. Now a huge trove of his personal writings has come to light, revealing the workings of his mind — and the life he leads behind bars.

From his prison cell, Ted Kaczynski — the “Unabomber,” who terrified the nation in the 1980s and early 1990s — has carried on a remarkable correspondence with thousands of people all over the world. As the 20th anniversary of his arrest approaches, Yahoo News is publishing a series of articles based on his letters and other writings, housed in an archive at the University of Michigan. They shed unprecedented light on the mind of Kaczynski — genius, madman and murderer.

On Sept. 11, 2001, Kaczynski awoke around dawn inside the 12-by-7-foot cell where he spends 23 hours a day in the most secure wing of the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colo., home to some of the most dangerous criminals in the country.

As the “Unabomber” — a name bestowed on him by the media based on the FBI’s UNABOM (University and Airline Bomber) investigation — Kaczynski had terrified the nation and eluded and taunted federal authorities from 1978 to 1995 with a series of fatal mail and package bombs, a campaign motivated by his hatred of modern technological society. In his cell he had a 12-inch television and radio, a reward for good behavior. He liked to listen to classical music on a public radio station out of nearby Colorado Springs, where he once mailed a song request that went ignored. But on Sept. 11, when he turned the radio on, it wasn’t Vivaldi or one of the other composers he favors. It was newscasters describing in stunned tones how passenger jetliners had been hijacked and flown into the Twin Towers in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, killing nearly 3,000 people on the ground and in the air.

[...]

In his tiny cell, Kaczynski sat and listened to the radio as the dramatic events of 9/11 played out. The event fascinated him, according to letters he exchanged with pen pals over the following months. He scrambled for information about Osama bin Laden and radical Islam and weighed in on al-Qaida’s motivation and strategy to those who wrote him.
But unlike many Americans who experienced the horrors of 9/11 so vividly through live television, Kaczynski chose only to imagine the depths of the calamity. He did not see the footage of the jets hitting the buildings, the black smoke slowly rising from the New York skyline as two icons of the financial world burned, or the cloud of acrid dust that suffocated lower Manhattan. Kaczynski not only distrusted the media, but he also saw television as one of the evils of the technological society he had long railed against. So, on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, he chose not to turn on his television. It was a matter of principle — and principles in Ted Kaczynski’s life were always more important than normal human emotions, like curiosity, love for his family or pity for his victims.

[...]

Over the next week, a series of articles will probe Kaczynski’s evolving thoughts about technology, his life behind bars, and his relationships with his family, his defense team and a woman who fell in love with him through his letters.

The collection of letters dates back to April 1996, just days after Kaczynski was arrested at his secluded cabin by federal agents acting on a tip from his brother. David Kaczynski contacted authorities after noting similarities between the language in the Unabomber’s manifesto (published, at the Unabomber’s demand, by the New York Times and Washington Post) and the ranting letters he had received from his estranged and reclusive older brother. With the exception of two angry letters Ted sent to David after learning he had turned him in, the Unabomber has never again spoken to the younger brother who once idolized him, and he ignored repeated desperate overtures from his mother, Wanda, who wrote him constantly until she died in 2011.

The series:

Monday, January 25 - A tale of two brothers >>>
Tuesday, January 26 - The Unabomber’s ‘Lady Love’
Wednesday, January 27 - Kaczynski and his lawyers
Thursday, January 28 - The Unabomber: Lost in cyberspace
Friday, January 29 - Life behind bars
Saturday, January 30 - Unabomber's media strategy


Much more, including 14 pages of letters penned by Kaczynski, at the link
 
Thanks for these, bessie. I've been reading on them a little along, as it's a lot. Fascinating and sad, though. I had no idea all this was being archived.

I've been meaning to read the John Douglas/Mark Olshaker book on TK, think this will spur me on to do so.
 
Ted Kaczynski, known as the "Unabomber," apparently sent a hand-written letter to New Yorker writer Lawrence Wright, reports CBS News correspondent Anna Werner. It has likely been sent to several other journalists. In it, Kaczynski attacks his brother who helped authorities end the bombing spree, once again standing by his belief that he is not crazy.

In the letter, Kaczynski wrote: "...I am ready to speak to someone from the media regarding my brother's recent comments and to discuss how they are being used to torment me."

Kaczynski list his conditions for granting an interview, including "tell me who you are," "why I should trust you," and "[affirm] that you understand that I am NOT mentally ill."
Click to expand...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/unabomb...out-to-journalist-lashes-out-against-brother/
 
This looks fascinating, Bessie. Will dig into it this weekend. The Yahoo link didn't work, for me. Went to their home page. This one should work: https://www.yahoo.com/news/the-unabomber-letters---a-yahoo-news-special-report-170846210.html?ref=gs


I don't think of Kaczynski as a serial killer. He's in some other category, imo. His motivations were socio-political. Maybe terrorist is a better word. It's been many years since I read anything about him and there's a lot about his life that rang alarm bells. Trauma when hospitalized as a baby; subjected to psychological torture in some mind control experiment at Harvard which had a horrendous impact on him; very odd mother and what amounted to survivalist camping trips growing up. It all seemed to push him over the edge of paranoia. I once read a little of his manifesto (very long) and it was brilliant. A compelling writer. No sign of delusional thinking. While it was a long time ago, when I read it I was in total agreement with everything he was saying! No sympathy for his crimes, of course, but found his concerns about the impact of technology to be spot on. I'm going to look it up and read the whole thing to better put his correspondence in context before I read that. I have a feeling that it (the manifesto) will be even more true, today. It was very visionary. So awful that his brilliant mind took such a dark turn and destroyed so many people (both his victims and family).

ETA: The manifesto - http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt
 
Ted Kaczynski is an interesting and strange individual. He is a genius and yet a crazy person. He would spend months working on a single bomb to send to a person he did not know personally, and then start over again with another. He did not seem to have any feelings of remorse or sympathy.

Although his "manifesto" tries to put his evil doings into some sort of justifiable crusade, it really just shows how disconnected from reality he is.

One has to wonder when it all began, and who were his earlier victims. When Ted was a teenager, attending classes at Harvard, there was a series of "Subway Bombings" in New York city. It is very likely that these were his doing as well.
 
"I remember sitting in a SUV for 2 weeks staking out , waiting to catch a glimpse of the guy and THAT walks out "- Conversation I had with Candace DeLong
 
The Unibomber case is a prime example of how law enforcement agencies with holding of information from the public can mean that criminals are not caught and can go on killing.

This was an FBI case, and they kept track of UNIBOM's many bombings over the course of 17 years, failing to identify or catch him.

Then he sends his "manifesto" to the Washington Post and the New York Times claiming that if they print it, he will stop the bombings. The FBI asked both newspapers to NOT print it. The newspapers did hold off for a while, reporting only bits and pieces until they eventually printed the whole thing.

With its release, David Kaczynski (Ted's brother) recognized the style, wording, and themes in it and contacted the FBI. He told them that he was not seeking the large reward, but said that he would tell them he would identify the Unibomber and say where he was on two conditions: first that Ted would not be hurt or killed, and second that the FBI would not reveal who gave them the information.

Well the FBI promised that they would comply with David's request, and when they got Ted's identification and location, went and put on a big show with a lot of high fiving and whoopla for the news media. Of course they immediately broke their promise to David Kaczynski and revealed the source of their information.

The FBI failed to identify or find the Unibomber for 17 years, wanted to suppress vital information in the press, and then lied to a person who "solved" the case for them and who asked to not be identified.

What were the consequences? Ted's family went ahead and asked for the reward (paid by the Federal government) because the FBI had broken their promise and identified them as their source.

In a larger sense, who could now trust the FBI and their false promises of confidentiality? How many persons with knowledge of various unsolved crimes have NOT come forward since then?

How many other times have law enforcement agencies withheld information from the public that could solve crimes and capture criminals who are at large and continuing their predations?
 
I'd probably do anything to get a murderer convicted. Sad but true. It may not be right. But they need put away or whatever.
 
Threatening to blow up another innocent person, if your manifesto is not published, in a "reputable periodical", in order to prevent further terrorism.. .. is the very definition of terrorism

"DO OR ELSE"

There's a reason you don't negotiate with terrorists.

Before anyone comes down on the FBI (and in some cases, it is rightfully so)

Just remember you're talking about a guy who , by the time decided to send his manifesto, had already sent 16 nail laden bombs to the homes and work places of random people, killing 3 and injuring another 2 dozen , not to mention trying to blow up a plane.

And you think that THAT individual is going to honor his word not to hurt anyone, or that LE should trust this individual?

A guy who "reserved the right to mail one more bomb if his writings weren't published in a reputable magazine "?

I know some are thinking "What could it hurt to publish his writing", or "maybe someone would recognize it"

First off what happens if they do publish it and he still kills ?, the Killer learns he can minipulate law enforcement , and the media and still be in control, feeding control to one who is seeking complete control is dangerous .

Terrorists don't ask for peace, they ask seek that which gain MORE control over something or someone .

Once they get what they want, though in the public eye it may look like "Whats could possibly happen", what really happened is they now know they can get what they want through threat and intimidation.

And like anything else , they will continue to push for what they want once you give into it, and it never ends.

Whether they are going to kill someone right now or not, unless they are negotiating their surrender, they will do whatever they did before , again, and again, until they do , but then.... whats to stop them ?, their good word ?, their conscience?.

Giving in does nothing to prevent further danger, it actually creates a much MORE dangerous situation.


And David by the time he comes forward, has already done his own investigation into his brother via PI, possibly tainting the FBIs case, then prepares a legal team to deliver evidence to the FBI, in order to secure his brothers safety, and remain anonymous but his name was leaked , now , sadly it happens, its usually someone offering money for information, or the media conducting a illegal investigation on their own.

Not so nitpick but despite being a Cornell grad this was a guy who once lived in a ditch he dug in the families back yard .

There's no evidence the FBI leaked Davids name .

Reno sought the death penalty to which the family felt betrayed, I saw NOWHERE ever that said Reno offered a plea deal prior then reneged on the offer . I don't even think its legal to negotiate a plea deal with the family of a suspect prior to his arrest, it can only be done with the individual personally and his attorney.

Again the FBI isn't infallible (far from) but you have to look at both sides of every case.
 
The manifesto (Industrial Society and Its Future) is a fascinating read.
 
There is no doubt that a serial killer like Ted Kaczynski would keep on doing what he was doing, regardless of whether or not the newspapers published his "manifesto".

The point is that the FBI took it upon themselves to try and prevent publication of the information that ultimately led to Ted's capture and conviction. Had the newspapers complied, the FBI would still be clueless and pursuing the Unibomber phantom.

And the FBI was the source of the "leak" which revealed David Kaczynski as the source of their information regarding Ted. They announced it almost as soon as they announced Ted's capture.
 
It was an active investigation its at their discretion as to what information is to be released, there are several reasons why .

Who could've known that the publication of the manifesto would lead to his arrest?, how does the FBI know someone would've identified him through his writing?

The Zodiac letters (and no I don't think they are the same person) were published, all that did was embolden a killer to keep killing and manipulating more.

Terrorism is just that "Do what I say or I will kill people", bowing to it at all only serves to give them what they want, POWER and CONTROL, and theres never an end to what a person with a violent ideology (one who wants to see the fall of technology of all things) will do.

Remember you are not dealing with a rational individual here.

Lets say they publish it and he then cuts off all communication, and his brother doesn't come forward... even if he keeps killing , you have NO line of communication with him, not bowing to their demands, means he will most likely communicate with LE further, by not giving into their demands you not only show you will not be intimidated into what they want, but you keep the dialogue open.

Not publishing his manifesto would've done the same thing as publishing it, except he would gain more power in his mind.

When you have a suspect contacting LE or the media that's your best link to them, every letter is a chance for physical evidence, your insight into their mindset , ......until you bow to their whim and they decide to start toying with the investigation.

I saw nowhere where it said the FBI was responsible for leaking Richards name, i saw that it was leaked, but not that they were responsible, they may have been, but I'm saying I never saw it

I dont blame the FBI for how they handled this case, 17 years of killing is a long time, id be high 5'ing and celebrating collaring the guy too.

Remember the manifesto wasn't sent to the media until the end of his spree, its not like they sat on it for years and people died because of it .

They had to analyze the hell out of it before any action was taken
 
There is no way to know how a serial predator will react or if publication will lead to his identification or arrest.

But, it is certain that nobody will be able to identify him if such information is with held from the public.

The FBI DID get a lot of tips and information from the public when the manifesto was published. Their on-site spokesperson even said so during all the hi-fiving.

That person went on to say that most of what they got was useless information and a waste of their valuable time. He even ridiculed one informant who had pointed out that the Unabomber seemed to have a pattern of placing/sending bombs which related to seasons and phases of the moon. "Moon Phases, Ha Ha Ha."

Of course, it was true and provable with any almanac. When one retiring FBI agent figured this out, he took credit for it in a book about the Unabomber six months later.

Certainly, there are reasons to withhold information on an unsolved case. But at some point, when the investigation has gone nowhere, releasing certain things might generate interest and lead to the bit of information that helps solve it. It could be something seemingly inconsequential, like a physical characteristic, an odd phrase, or the brand of cigarette that an unidentified suspect smoked that gets someone to think, "it could be..."

I take exception to, "Remember you are not dealing with a rational individual here."

These serial killers for the most part DO have a high sense of logical/rational thinking. It is just not the same logic that normal people use. If a killer was totally irrational, he would be caught very quickly. If someone has successfully evaded the FBI for 17 years - to the point where they don't know who he is or where he lives, it shows that he has a good deal of intelligence and some sense of logic and order. How he chooses to use that logic and intelligence is what makes him the human predator that he is.

I am not praising these killers in any way, only stating that to catch them, one has to understand their way of thinking, rationalizing, and motivation.
 
Richard said:
There is no way to know how a serial predator will react or if publication will lead to his identification or arrest.

But, it is certain that nobody will be able to identify him if such information is with held from the public.

The FBI DID get a lot of tips and information from the public when the manifesto was published. Their on-site spokesperson even said so during all the hi-fiving.

That person went on to say that most of what they got was useless information and a waste of their valuable time. He even ridiculed one informant who had pointed out that the Unabomber seemed to have a pattern of placing/sending bombs which related to seasons and phases of the moon. "Moon Phases, Ha Ha Ha."

Of course, it was true and provable with any almanac. When one retiring FBI agent figured this out, he took credit for it in a book about the Unabomber six months later.

Certainly, there are reasons to withhold information on an unsolved case. But at some point, when the investigation has gone nowhere, releasing certain things might generate interest and lead to the bit of information that helps solve it. It could be something seemingly inconsequential, like a physical characteristic, an odd phrase, or the brand of cigarette that an unidentified suspect smoked that gets someone to think, "it could be..."

I take exception to, "Remember you are not dealing with a rational individual here."

These serial killers for the most part DO have a high sense of logical/rational thinking. It is just not the same logic that normal people use. If a killer was totally irrational, he would be caught very quickly. If someone has successfully evaded the FBI for 17 years - to the point where they don't know who he is or where he lives, it shows that he has a good deal of intelligence and some sense of logic and order. How he chooses to use that logic and intelligence is what makes him the human predator that he is.

I am not praising these killers in any way, only stating that to catch them, one has to understand their way of thinking, rationalizing, and motivation.
Click to expand...


Rational thinking is situational, it can change with situation

Ted Bundy went from coldly and calculatingly picking up coeds, to the frenzied bashing of members of the Chi Omega house , because at that point he was under duress, his methods had become irrational.


Threatening the deaths of innocents if your ideology isnt published , then holding a spot in reserve for one more if it is not a credible publication, that person can not be reasoned with, not at that point. .

They are not rational at that point, there is no bargaining they are not hearing anything other than what they want, we can look at their rationale , but that doesn't make them rational.

I know a thing or 2 about serial offenders myself, and were not comparing this case, to other serial murder cases, bombers themselves, are very different than your sexual serial predator, you cant lump them all together.

I never did al almanac search on who revealed who in what case, etc.. I know one person who was actually involved in the Unabomb case, Ive spoken to this former agent several times, I never once heard that the FBI was responsible for leaking Richards name .

SO if thats the case, good detective work

But one fact you have to understand is hindsight is always 20/20, its easy to Monday morning quarterback any investigation, but at the time, its what they had, they did what they know how to do, none else died (the ultimate goal) while they were investigating this suspect .

Im not defending the FBI, as a matter of fact i can cite several times i was vehemently against them, but i see it often that years after , a "they shoulda" pops up, and not to be dismissive, but unless you've been there you really don't know what that's like.

Ive never been involved in a case, of that magnitude, but even the smaller ones are ridiculously involved, for a case, like this ...I don't know how they handle them , but i'm sure it involved fair amount of booze, aspirin, late nights, junk food , meetings, interviews, headaches, thousands and thousands of dead ends , imodium, time away from family, long car rides, pepto bismol, uncomfortable suits, sleeping at your desk, in your car, arguments, despite other cases, is involved, required obligations to the agency

Sometimes we just get lucky, and thankfully so

SO how they got there hey fine well call the FBI bad for leaking Richards, name, but withholding info did not lead to any further deaths , and thankfully a very dangerous idealistic predator was caught and put away for life
 
Actually it was David Kaczynski's name that the FBI leaked to the press - and this was immediately after Ted's arrest. It was very clearly in opposition to what they had promised the Kaczynski family and there was absolutely no need to do it. The FBI could have simply taken credit for solving the case on their own - as they have done many times in the past.

If their identification of a confidential source was an unintentional blunder, there was no explanation or apology offered to my knowledge.

The UNABOM case was investigated primarily as a "bomber" case, but there is significant evidence that Ted also murdered at least one person (a logger) with a rifle. If there was any solid information connecting him to other types of serial crimes, I don't believe it was ever presented. Most theories linking Ted Kaczynski to other cases are based on speculation, comparison, and projection, rather than on hard evidence.

Ted Bundy is a good example of how a serial offender will often devolve and go from a relatively careful offender to a disorganized killer, acting in an out-of-control or seemingly irrational manner.

Bundy was captured in Pensacola, Florida when he was pulled over for driving a stolen Volkswagon in a reckless manner on a "back" road. The police officer thought he was probably a drunk driver. Instead of simply complying with the officer's requests for identification, Bundy chose to attack him and attempted to flee on foot. Once in custody, Bundy reverted to his calm, collected, and conniving persona.

Kaczynski and Bundy were both serial killers - but with very different modes of operation.
 
Last edited:
Richard said:
Actually it was David Kaczynski's name that the FBI leaked to the press - and this was immediately after Ted's arrest. It was very clearly in opposition to what they had promised the Kaczynski family and there was absolutely no need to do it. The FBI could have simply taken credit for solving the case on their own - as they have done many times in the past.

If their identification of a confidential source was an unintentional blunder, there was no explanation or apology offered to my knowledge.

The UNABOM case was investigated primarily as a "bomber" case, but there is significant evidence that Ted also murdered at least one person (a logger) with a rifle. If there was any solid information connecting him to other types of serial crimes, I don't believe it was ever presented. Most theories linking Ted Kaczynski to other cases are based on speculation, comparison, and projection, rather than on hard evidence.

Ted Bundy is a good example of how a serial offender will often devolve and go from a relatively careful offender to a disorganized killer, acting in an out-of-control or seemingly irrational manner.

Bundy was captured in Pensacola, Florida when he was pulled over for driving a stolen Volkswagon in a reckless manner on a "back" road. The police officer thought he was probably a drunk driver. Instead of simply complying with the officer's requests for identification, Bundy chose to attack him and attempted to flee on foot. Once in custody, Bundy reverted to his calm, collected, and conniving persona.

Kaczynski and Bundy were both serial killers - but with very different modes of operation.
Click to expand...


The FBI has had many a snafu or 2 before, Im not saying its out of the realm pf possibility that it happened, Im saying I never saw anywhere where the FBI itself released Davids name

I cant see that agency (if you've ever dealt with them you'd understand) deliberately releasing a confidential informants identity , risking a lawsuit and the reputation of the bureau.

To what end would that be ?, what do they gain from it? , ..nothing really, and if youre caught youe behind would be in a sling , so even though it was released im more inclined to believe either someone was paid to give out the info or it was a slip up .

Im not condoning it, im saying thats what it seems, the FBI, isnt usually that reckless, and they take their reputation very seriously .

Likewise I don't believe Ted (K) was involved in any other murders, he operated from the safety of his shack hidden in the wilderness , comfortable in his isolation, which probably served to allow him to delve more into his fanatical thinking .

Although Bundy was also a serial killer , he was a completely different animal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 163 more.
Total: 416 (members: 164, guests: 252)

Online statistics

Members online
164
Guests online
252
Total visitors
416
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,193
Messages
18,250,560
Members
234,554
Latest member
erhern
Back
Top