A little off-topic, but….I’ve been thinking about Ed Neil’s theory on the author of the 1978 letter. Neil believes it’s Graysmith. Now I’m not much of a fan of Neil’s theories, such as the one about the rolling cab (Or as I call it, A Convoluted Solution in Search of a Convoluted Problem) or that Lass was a lesbian who ran off with her lover, but Graysmith seems the most likely suspect for a variety of reasons, which I shall list:

1. Graysmith intimated it would be easy to fake a Zodiac letter.

2. The 1978 letter "plugs" Toschi. Graysmith seems to have liked and appreciated the inspector.

3. Graysmith’s 340 solution contained the name Herb Caen. The 1978 letter contained the name Herb Caen. No where else does Herb Caen appear.

4. The letter mentions "that city pig". ALA lived in Vallejo. Graysmith seemed to deeply believe ALA was the Zodiac.

5. The letter arrived not too long after ALA was released from incarceration.

6. Graysmith worked where the letters were received and thus had excellent access to them.

7. The letter mentions "I am back with you", as if to say "I’ve been gone". ALA had recently returned from a stint in Atascadero.

Because it’s highly likely Graysmith wrote the 1978 letter, which is clearly a mediocre fakery, and because the Exorcist letter is a nearly spot-on match for the Zodiac’s earlier letters, and because its unlikely Graysmith would have been able to make an excellent but un-Zodiac letter in 1974 only to craft a more crude Zodiac-esque letter four years later, the only conclusion is thus: the person who made the 1978 letter did not make the 1974 letter.

Now, I don’t think Graysmith was trying to do wrong. I think he was pretty sure ALA was the Zodiac and was thus getting away with murder. I think he thought he was helping the SFPD arrest and convict a serial killer. Unfortunately, ALA wasn’t the Zodiac and therefore Graysmith did nothing but cause Allen grief he did not actually earn.

Totally agree with jroberson.

Yeah, I personally think the RG theory is a pretty good one. As such. It makes sense on several levels. More so than Toschi being responsible.

The DNA business is still problematic, though.

Thing is – if it was Graysmith, and the DNA story is more or less true (I don’t see any reason to doubt that DNA was lifted from the ’78 letter), would they have his DNA on file? Would they go to the trouble of obtaining it? And wouldn’t we have known about it if they did? It’s a pretty sensational story, after all.

To me it looks like they concluded straight away that the ’78 sample was not Z – couldn’t have been. The most obvious explanation would be that the DNA was female. You don’t need any (other) samples on file to conclude that.

I’m not sure I follow you, Norse, but if you’re saying that the DNA under the 1978 letter was determined to be female, then perhaps it’s from Graysmith’s wife, if he were married at the time.

Some people apply stamps to envelopes before either is actually used so as to not lose the stamps. People with OCD more than those without, perhaps.

So if the DNA from the 1978 letter is female, and I do not know if that was determined (and even if so what’s the certitude? Determining sex, age and other characteristics from DNA is still in its infancy), perhaps it originated with Graysmith’s wife.

Just a guess.

Still, where did one read that the 1978 letter’s DNA was determined to be female?

It’s by no means an established fact – just an idea. We’ve discussed it on here before – someone suggested that the DNA could be female, which would explain how Z could be ruled out as the writer without further ado, so to speak.

If they ruled out Z because they knew, positively, that it was the DNA of a specific person (who was not Z), then it strikes me as odd that no rumors (to my knowledge) have ever surfaced as to who that person is. There have been plenty of rumors about who the faker was – but none that have specifically mentioned the DNA of a named person.

I’m no expert but from what I’ve been able to understand, the simplest fact which can be determined from examining DNA – is gender.

It could certainly be a wife – or a child, who knows? But the story we’re talking about here goes like this: DNA was gathered from both the ’78 letter and one of the ’74 batch. And it was the same DNA. Hence the conclusion: The ’74 is a fake, fabricated by the same person who did the ’78 fake – the DNA being what links the two letters.

So, if it was a wife – then the same wife must have left her DNA on the ’74 letter as well.

This is – obviously – somewhat hazy even to begin with. But we do know that DNA was gathered from both the ’78 letter and from the Exorcist letter – that seems undeniable.

Yeah, I don’t buy that at all, unless this ’74 letter is something we haven’t seen. There’s no way you’ll EVER convince me the same boob wrote both the Exorcist letter and the City Pig letter. No way in hell. That’s pretty clear to even the most maladroit buffoon. An intelligent child could tell you the two were clearly not prepared by the same person.

So I think it’s either not true, as I haven’t seen anything confirmed or official from SFPD stating that DNA from both of these letters matched, or there’s another ’74 letter we haven’t seen, or they botched the DNA test.

I’m betting the house on number three, with number one a really close second.

It’s by no means an established fact – just an idea. We’ve discussed it on here before – someone suggested that the DNA could be female, which would explain how Z could be ruled out as the writer without further ado, so to speak.

Perhaps I’m missing something, but…why couldn’t one determine the 1978 letter is a fake simply because its DNA doesn’t match the DNA found on the authenticated Zodiac letters? Why would the DNA have to be female? Seems to me that’s a rather unnecessary convolution if you’ve already determined that DNA pulled from authenticated exemplars clearly doesn’t match DNA pulled from what most experts determined was a rather amateurish forgery.

Ah, yes – sorry.

I was mixing the cards above.

As the story goes, the ’78 DNA was extracted before the so-called Zodiac profile (what they think is his DNA) was put together.

So, in essence, the ’78 DNA wasn’t compared to the Z profile. Meaning that in order to conclude that the DNA did not belong to Z, it had to be a) the DNA of someone known, who could not possibly be Z – or b) a woman.

Sorry about the confusion – what I said above doesn’t make sense, clearly not.

Well that certainly changes things.

Do you have a link to any documentation regarding those claims?

I’m afraid not.

But here’s something I just remembered: At some point ALA’s DNA was apparently compared to the ’78 DNA too. Butterfield makes a point of this, IIRC – in one his Graysmith essays.

The latter has to be documented somewhere, by the way. But…this would seem to throw a spanner in the works of the female theory: If they determined quickly that the DNA was female – why bother comparing it to ALA?

They were definite that ’78 letter was NOT Zodiac based off DNA. How they know this is very curious. They did not state as boldly any of the other letters were so conclusive. Things like, "few cells", "cells found".

Exorcist – Tested
Citizen Card – Not tested
Red Phantom – Not tested

I wonder when the DNA report was created: http://www.zodiackiller.com/SFPDDNA.html

I find the lower case g’s interesting in the ’78 letter. Real or fake, either way interesting ‘style’ choice and habit variations have also been included.

Firstly. That ‘style’ of g is quite interesting. Why? Well it’s not Zodiac’s typical lower case g. Zodiac’s most often used is this.

Then we have variations on those. Here are a few examples. They are obviously Zodiacs g’s but look at the differences. They are quite varied once you get into detail regarding head shapes etc.

So this brings us to the ’78 letter. What’s so interesting about the g’s. Well for one thing they aren’t Zodiac’s typical g’s. In fact they aren’t even that similar to any of the variations (in the accepted letters). They are however closer in style to the g’s used in the Citizen letter. That’s kinda interesting though because if you were a forger would you pick and use exclusively a style of g that was only ever employed in a Zodiac letter that technically isn’t even a Zodiac letter?

So I compared the two sets of g’s out of curiosity and in doing so I noted a similarity in the variation range in the tails on the g’s. The tops are obviously different but the ones in the citizen letter share striking resemblances to other ones used by Zodiac. It’s the tails he varied but what he appears to have done is carried over the ‘variation range ‘ in the tail shapes.

Here’s what’s confusing me. If you are trying to fake a Zodiac letter why would you create what is technically a new style of g albeit with previously used habits in the tails only? Ok, lets say you spotted that trait in Zodiac’s own letters and are attempting to recreate. If you are going to that level of detail why can’t you create a letter that looks authentic in all aspects. Why does this letter look like a forgery yet contains, at least to my eye, some very clever subtleties.

There’s more. That style of g, I thought had only turned up in the Citizen letter but it technically hadn’t. It had already made an appearance in the Belli letter. Again variation on the head but similarities in the tail variations. So what the? lol. Is this a really convoluted fake or is it something else. Anywho, my eyes and brain need a rest so here’s some more pictures to hopefully illustrate what I’m on about. I’m not sure I know anymore.

Thanks for the comparisons Trav. I know that is time consuming to put together.

We know the ’78 (to some) was a decent fake, and many today believe it is authentic. For it to fool some, it had to be Zodiac-like. Some have stated that letters were traced somehow and if one were to do that I would think would go to a variety of previous Zodiac letters to do so.

Thanks Trav. There’s something ‘off’ with the g’s from 78. They look traced or something, and the tops do not look at all like Zodiac’s

Thanks for the comparisons Trav. I know that is time consuming to put together.

We know the ’78 (to some) was a decent fake, and many today believe it is authentic. For it to fool some, it had to be Zodiac-like. Some have stated that letters were traced somehow and if one were to do that I would think would go to a variety of previous Zodiac letters to do so.

I would think that too. In fact that would be my base assumption or indeed even my own choice if I were too consider such an undertaking. What I find weird here is that whoever created the ’78 letter looks to have done that but appears to have made some odd choices. I don’t know. Just trying to get my head around the logic in it. I mean they appear to have created a ‘new’ type of g but following Z’s own variations and indeed his own habits. There’s more as well. The choices of the styles of lowercase m’s are quite curious too. I’m slightly confused as to how in one way whoever created it has payed attention to some rather obscure details yet overall it looks for all the world like a mish-mash creation but with new variations alongside pre-existing ones. Some of those m’s looks similar to ones used in the Marco letter and the desktop.

I’m not trying to argue either way on it. Just wondering out loud at what I think I’m seeing and trying to understand if or how that fits into the context of creating that letter. If it’s real or fake. Either or.

Thanks Trav. There’s something ‘off’ with the g’s from 78. They look traced or something, and the tops do not look at all like Zodiac’s

They do. How do you get the variations right in the tails though with the wrong top? How do you get the wrong top at all if they are traced? How can you trace from something that hasn’t been done before?