Count Marco was “ created” by the Executive Editor of The San Francisco Chronicle.
He was told “ what” to write for subscription purposes ( Chronicle-Examiner pre conglomeration in 1966)

He was assigned his stories, Limo, Coat of Arms, and, fake regal lineage.

I won’t link it just because…. it’s an easy search.

I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to find out the “Count”, never wrote nor received letters , responses, columns, or any correspondence directly.
It was all through the Editor.

IBF

Zodiac sure copied/sourced allot of stuff. Though I wonder where he saw Count Marco’s handwriting?

Zodiac sure copied/sourced allot of stuff. Though I wonder where he saw Count Marco’s handwriting?

I don’t think Zodiac wrote the Phantom letter and frankly the handwriting is so dissimilar that I can’t understand how any connection was made. Perhaps old Sherwood “took a glance” at it.

Zodiac sure copied/sourced allot of stuff. Though I wonder where he saw Count Marco’s handwriting?

You’ll find lines in other Zodiac communications. You will find them in plenty of non-Zodiac communications also. People draw lines like this it seems.

Do my
thing!!!!
_____
____
___
__

"You’ll find lines in other Zodiac communications. You will find them in plenty of non-Zodiac communications also. People draw lines like this it seems."

And your example contains a whopping one dash. Boy do I have egg on my face…

When considering the validity of the Count Marco letter, consider the SLA letter. Separated by 5 months, with the SLA letter and envelope unpublished, when we add "tails" to the SLA envelope, it mirrors the Red Phantom letter almost exactly. I’m not a great fan of handwriting analysis, but considering the SLA envelope wasn’t splashed all over the newspapers, I would say they were the same author. The author of the Red Phantom communication had just added exaggerated tails to the handwriting (nothing more). The address format was equally identical. The SLA, Badlands and Red Phantom communications also used an address style never before used by the Zodiac Killer.

Place this alongside two options: The Zodiac Killer reappeared after nearly 3 years from the Los Angeles letter, and just happened to write about the SLA the day before Patricia Hearst was kidnapped. Or, the SLA wrote the February 3rd 1974 letter the day before the Hearst kidnapping, then they additonally mailed a second letter on February 10th 1974. Both of which began with "Dear" and ended with "A friend". Either Zodiac had impeccable timing, or the SLA letter was written by the SLA. When you consider the envelope comparison between the SLA and Red Phantom letter, the conclusion is that neither were Zodiac. The Symbionese Liberation Army had many left-leaning women members and affiliates, with every reason to pour scorn of the chauvinistic Count Marco. The Zodiac Killer shot women, not leapt to their defence, demanding the column be cancelled.

Thanks, Richard. More evidence for my theory that the last authentic Zodiac correspondence was the LA Times letter in 1971.

I haven’t thought about the SLA letter for years but I remember the postmark date being Feb. 14th or so. Is there anything to corroborate an earlier date? Besides the mention in the FBI files? I’ve seen bad dates in the FBI files before.

I haven’t thought about the SLA letter for years but I remember the postmark date being Feb. 14th or so. Is there anything to corroborate an earlier date? Besides the mention in the FBI files? I’ve seen bad dates in the FBI files before.

Well, the two very first FBI files state February 3rd 1974, along with a mailing location of Los Angeles (913). Even if we contend they made a mistake twice, we would then have to explain a mailing location never used before by Zodiac. The 913 attribution would also have to be explained. The mix up in dates occurred because the person who compiled a subsequent list of all the communications typed February 14th for the SLA letter, but he also typed May 6th 1974 for the Badlands letter. This person got his information from another FBI file stating "that on 2/14/74 the enclosed letter was received by the San Francisco Chronicle". That is, received not postmarked. He just interpreted the file incorrectly. You will remember that another 1974 communication was received at the Chronicle about a month after its postmark. Here are the initial two FBI files stating 3 FEB 1974, followed by the file which was interpreted incorrectly by the compiler of subsequent lists.

Additonally, a February 3rd 1974 mailing about the SLA from Los Angeles (the day before the kidnapping), where the Symbionese Liberation Army had one of its two headquarters, makes more sense than a Zodiac Killer just reappearing after a 3-year hiatus, and by some stroke of luck, just happening to write about the Symbionese Liberation Army the day before the SLA’s most noteworthy crime. Tie this with the aforementioned FEB 10 Hearst communication, signing off with "A friend" only 7 days later, and it becomes a difficult argument for the SLA letter being Zodiac. Neither the February 3rd or February 10th letters were published.

So Shimoda authenticated the SLA letter.

I’m going to post this FBI report here — although "debate about the Marco letter" should be another thread — for the benefit of those who haven’t seen it. Note the final paragraph:

Shimoda, in 1978, also "formed the opinion that the Riverside letters were not authored by Zodiac". David Tosci believed the latter three 1974 letters were authentic. They are effectively just opinions, of which some will agree and others will not. In absence of corroborating fingerprints or DNA, I fail to see how anybody can reliably authenticate the SLA letter from a few lines of scruffy handwriting.

Well, that’s what Toschi told the public. There must be a reason they redacted a huge chunk of that FBI report.

Because of the extreme similarity of the envelopes, I tend to think whoever wrote the SLA letter wrote RP. Therefore, negating one would negate the other.

The SLA letter was never reported in the papers, so those are no help. And it was omitted entirely from the DNA lab report that Voigt got in ’99…another can of worms.

I have for a long time questioned the accuracy and efficacy of handwriting analysis particularly as it pertains to the Zodiac case. As RG stated above, it is just and educated opinion. I think too many people put too much weight on the handwriting analysis.

The SLA and Red Phantom handwriting is extremely similar, but much prefer to compare the structure or format. Same wording, punctuation and general positioning, with an address style to the Chronicle never previously used by Zodiac in the generally accepted communications. I believe the SLA and Red Phantom envelope were authored by the same individual, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the contents of the envelope were. The timing of the SLA letter in respect to the Hearst kidnapping is interesting. There are also many SLA writings in and around this period based on women’s rights and chauvinistic attitudes, hence my thinking that both the SLA and Red Phantom letter were authored by a female. Calling for the removal of the Count Marco column, more a call to remove chauvinistic rhetoric from the Hearst related newspapers – albeit by extension.