They more than likely are different pens. I just wanted to highlight that you can’t always be sure exactly what you’re looking at when it comes to what we have, hi-res files or not unless they were modern hi-res copies, then you have a better chance. I don’t think I’ve seen any fully hi-res copies of any of the Zodiac stuff. There are files that are pretty good and compared to some are hi-res but it’s not full hi-res.

Here’s the answer to the question I posed either about which pen was heavier. The answer is neither.

They are both the same pen from the same letter. Just different pages.

So which one is correct? or rather more accurate? No idea.

Regarding the envelopes. Does it seem likely that a polygraph machine would be employed just to do the backs of two out of the three envelopes in this group? I don’t see the logic in that. I still that duplication is the most likely explanation here.

Anywho, the envelopes and letters together.

And a large overlay of the two back. I’m 99% sure these are the same back from one envelope. The missing 1% is that I can’t actually hold the two envelopes in my hands to be sure. Every little bobble on the line edges match and there’s even the same artifact on both that the same shape (highlighted by red arrow). The only thing I had a slight problem with was the S in Rush but not enough to not be able to put it down to copy distortion.

So. I think they are the same and that means we dont have the back for one of those envelopes.

Alright, so after re-examining these letters up close yet again, any Manalli stuff jump out at you?

Alright, so after re-examining these letters up close yet again, any Manalli stuff jump out at you?

Doesn’t seem to work that way for me. I’m more likely have something Zodiacesque jump out at me looking at the POI’s samples rather than the other way round, usually. Short answer, no lol.

Excellent job with the graphics Trav and nice analysis. It seems, if you are correct, that the missing back would be the Chronicle..would you agree?
That again makes it all the more frustrating for me as the two hi resolution copies I have came from San Francisco. I’ve yet to confirm the exact provenance but this must have been a very early mix up in the process. Would you agree that if you are correct that we must be dealing with many copies of copies?

What’s up with this?

Check out the front of the SF Chronicle letter with the exclamation point: http://zodiackiller.com/SFCEFHR.html

Now look at this copy Tom provided @ zk.com of the Examiner’s envelopes: http://zodiackiller.com/SFEEHR.html

The SAME "Editor !" is shown sideways next to the envelopes.

What part would that (on the Examiner) have been written?

Excellent job with the graphics Trav and nice analysis. It seems, if you are correct, that the missing back would be the Chronicle..would you agree?
That again makes it all the more frustrating for me as the two hi resolution copies I have came from San Francisco. I’ve yet to confirm the exact provenance but this must have been a very early mix up in the process. Would you agree that if you are correct that we must be dealing with many copies of copies?

Thank You,

Yes I think it’s the Chron but I’m not totally sure yet. Looking at them, as they are here, the Chron certainly visually looks to be the odd one out. The version that we think is the Chron is a scan of a photo, that I assume must be from the Examiner’s own photo of the envelope they received their letter in as it has no LE id’s on it. Taken obviously before it was handed over as evidence. We know the Chron did this with the stuff they received and that’s what’s kinda throwing me a little here because in that regard it’s more likely that it would be a photo from the Chron’s archives but no, the back looks to be the Examiner’s and by default not the Chron so the photo must be the Examiner’s envelope by default.

As for copies of copies. In a lot of cases, absolutely. We saw last year, first hand a really good example of this with the last batch of FOI stuff morf got from the FBI. The SLA card, that look’s like it starts with ‘Near Mr Editor’ was actually ‘Dear Mr Editor’ I know logic dictates that it probably was Dear and not Near but even still, when we got the cleaner version (still a B&W mono reproduction, the photocopy looking ones) the difference was still quite startling.

I say a lot of cases but not all because there are some fantastic reproductions out there, I’d cite the Dripping Pen Card original press photo that NIN procured as one off the top of my head. I don’t know the exact chain for it but at the very least we have photo/transparency > scan > to us and that’s the best I think we’ll ever get and we won’t get that for all of them. For one thing I don’t even think anyone knows where half of the stuff actually is anyway and even at that, to get LE to dig it out then send it to somewhere to have it scanned directly I can’t see happening as it’s evidence and when it has been photographed as such it’s already been done a long time ago by LE. Most of what we get is either pre-evidence press (which can be very good) or the melted mush of the FBI FOI files. There area few LE ones like the ciphers but even they aren’t hi-res despite being labeled as such.

That’s my take on the situation anyway.

What’s up with this?

Check out the front of the SF Chronicle letter with the exclamation point: http://zodiackiller.com/SFCEFHR.html

Now look at this copy Tom provided @ zk.com of the Examiner’s envelopes: http://zodiackiller.com/SFEEHR.html

The SAME "Editor !" is shown sideways next to the envelopes.

What part would that (on the Examiner) have been written?

I was thinking about that last night T. No clear thought’s yet but good job on bringing it up.

EDIT: To make it more confusing I think I have another version of that sideways editor or I’ve def seen one that looks more photo and less photocopy.

EDIT: Ok my brain’s caught up and I’ve remembered what I used to think about this. It has to be from the flap but the flap from a side loading envelope as opposed to a more traditional top loader ala a birthday card envelope.

Here’s the differences in the SLA card through copying. Notice the ‘Y’ that seems to have been added to ‘SLA’ in the copy that had been floating around for years before this more recent one from the FBI.

Regarding the use of a polygraph machine at all in the Zodiac case, is this a GS? OR a bit GS and a bit LE?

I was just thinking about this earlier, apropos nothing most likely and, perhaps this is why it isn’t discussed much lol. It’s nonsense isn’t it. Was it because of the wobbly baselines? either way I must have been thinking about because of this thread and despite the more obvious reasons for it being highly unlikely (being kind) it occurred to me how laborious it would be to compose a single letter, nevermind a six page one using this method.

1. You would have to use a different version of each character everytime it’s used to match the flow of real writing. That’s gonna take FOREVER and you’re gonna cut corners and hence leave trail.

2. You would need enough of someone else’s handwriting to do this.

3. Even if you manage the first 2 there’s still the issue of baselines, they have to match, even if they are ‘wobbly’ they still have to have a consistency and will have with certain groupings of characters, his ‘Th’ combination for example and even the flow of the lines have to bear similar relationship in their behaviour to each other, bend where they usually bend, etc. Basically there should be a pattern there and that ‘s a hard thing to match because you technically have nothing to copy it from. You could use each line from the donor pages as a baseline for your newly worded lines but the thing about baselines is that they influence those below them and vice versa and I can see all sorts of problems with characters top and tails in some instances crossing unaturally. It wouldn’t look right and produce another trail that a device WAS used.

4. Finally, if by some miracle you managed to overcome all those obstacles and character by character wrote ALL those letters, then they would all look the same and they don’t, so there lol

What about using a light box? I think that a strong enough light bulb would enable someone to see well enough to trace over a couple of layers of paper.

What about using a light box? I think that a strong enough light bulb would enable someone to see well enough to trace over a couple of layers of paper.

Yes, it’s a plausible alternative but I still forsee the same problems. I can’t be 100% but I don’t see any evidence of it in Zodiac’s writing. I’ve said right from the start that there’s a fluidity to it that to the eye doesn’t look odd, it may be untidy but it’s consistent. The flow of the baselines make sense. If they were visible you see how the arc’s and dips, no matter how dramatic, would have flow that relates to not only the characters on the line but also the spaces between them, there would be a repetition of that throughout. I see that when I look at Zodiac’s writing.

Again, Zodiac wrote in a few different styles that were all derivative of a single style. He would have needed to have those to copy from and they would need to be from the same person otherwise it would show. And to once again meticulously hand pick different characters whilst keeping relative. Remember, this HAS to be done character by character for the most part because it’s not likely, whoever’s handwriting it is will have all the whole words you need. And…lol…I’m sure using a mix of single characters and whole words may also present clashes with baseline fluidity.

This is my take on it anyway.

I can remember struggling to trace things without something moving before I’d finished. This was even on drawing boards with things masked down and high grade tracing film, not your usual baking paper type stuff. One important difference was that this stuff was waterproof so it wouldn’t buckle the trace when wet ink was applied. Depending then on how much tracing you were doing, the tracing paper would get pulled a little off alignment each time. The high grade stuff though had it’s own inherent failing that despite being water proof it was a lot more stubborn than tracing paper and would refuse to sit completely flat so when you rested on it to trace one end would go up slightly as your palm edge depressed the other. Tracing through a light enough sheet of ordinary paper would likely suffer less of these problems but one problem it does have is it’s opacity and that would be a real hindrance when it comes to a lot of the finer detail.

I could be wrong but those are the problems I would see happening if I was asked to sit down and try it for all of those letters and over the same time period.

Even in bringing up this subject in the first place, I’d thought if a copying device was at play, it would most likely be that one instance. I did wonder though about all the breaks/gaps in individual words and wondered if it could have been attributed to the use of a copying machine, where he took letters from different words. At least the question had to be asked. In any case the experts (apparently) claim that the writing was done at speed.
We’d have to bow to that I guess, however, when we look at the Hi resolution copies of communications like the Stine letter for example, there appears to be many "ink spots" within individual letters, an indication that the pen stalled at those points. At face value I can’t think how that reconciles with fast writing but then again, I do not have any particular knowledge of the subject.

Never mind. I’m wrong.

Polite correction. The type of copying device being discussed is a pantograph, not a polygraph. A polygraph is a lie detector.
I’ve used one a few times and never had good results with it, but I wasn’t trying to copy handwriting either.

Both terms are technically correct. Originally invented by Thomas Jefferson, it was called a polygraph. More commonly know now as pantographs. See the link posted by traveller 1st..4th post on page1 of this thread. At a guess I’d say the lie detector (polygraph name) probably derived from the original device.

Both terms are technically correct. Originally invented by Thomas Jefferson, it was called a polygraph. More commonly know now as pantographs. See the link posted by traveller 1st..4th post on page1 of this thread. At a guess I’d say the lie detector (polygraph name) probably derived from the original device.

I would say so and given that the early lie detectors produced readings onto paper from several writing points or nibs, it was actually a POLY-graph that was produced. So it would seem that it was named from this aspect rather than it’s actual purpose.