While anything is possible, comparing handwriting between communications to attribute them to the same author is speculative (unless they are virtually identical, with exact same punctuation and written without knowledge of one another) .Imagine the Belli letter having been written in 1981 (without a shirt piece). I suspect everybody would be saying that the writing looks nothing like the earlier Zodiac letters, such as the July 31st and August 4th letters. How Sherwood Morrill authenticated the Bates letters is beyond reason. Anybody could have scrawled that mess. That is why I associated the February 3rd and February 10th communications through “Dear” and “a Friend”, both connected in written form to the SLA – and why it was important to find the two original source FBI files (the very first FBI files) showing the postmark of February 3rd. To believe the Zodiac Killer just happened to turn up on February 3rd 1974 and create a letter about the SLA the day before the SLA’s most high profile attack, then sign it with “a friend” just seven days before the Symbionese Liberation Army did the exact same thing on February 10th, would be so unlikely it defies belief. But in terms of handwriting, the Red Phantom envelope author could not have mimicked to unreleased SLA envelope, but he did. Thereby implying one author. But even with all this evidence, it is almost impossible to change long held beliefs regarding these letters. They weren’t genuine Zodiac communication (or hoaxed either), they were just misinterpreted as the Zodiac Killer through flawed handwriting analysis, as probably were the Bates letters. They also dismissed the 1987 letter, which they thought was copied from the 1978 letter. But what they didn’t do was compare the 1987 Vallejo Times-Herald envelope with the July 31st 1969 Vallejo Times-Herald envelope, which they didn’t have available in 1987. Deferring to hand writing or document examiners as the arbiter of truth is flawed. Just ask 100 document examiners whether Patsy Ramsey authored the 2 1/2 page ransom note and see if you get a concensus. There are better ways to authenticate the “Zodiac” letters than just relying on handwriting. The use of handwriting should be used in conjunction with other methods as an overall package. Check out “Daubert” and American law regarding the rules of handwriting testimony in the US court system.  

Posted by: @richard-grinell

While anything is possible, comparing handwriting between communications to attribute them to the same author is speculative (unless they are virtually identical, with exact same punctuation and written without knowledge of one another) .Imagine the Belli letter having been written in 1981 (without a shirt piece). I suspect everybody would be saying that the writing looks nothing like the earlier Zodiac letters, such as the July 31st and August 4th letters. How Sherwood Morrill authenticated the Bates letters is beyond reason. Anybody could have scrawled that mess. That is why I associated the February 3rd and February 10th communications through “Dear” and “a Friend”, both connected in written form to the SLA – and why it was important to find the two original source FBI files (the very first FBI files) showing the postmark of February 3rd. To believe the Zodiac Killer just happened to turn up on February 3rd 1974 and create a letter about the SLA the day before the SLA’s most high profile attack, then sign it with “a friend” just seven days before the Symbionese Liberation Army did the exact same thing on February 10th, would be so unlikely it defies belief. But in terms of handwriting, the Red Phantom envelope author could not have mimicked to unreleased SLA envelope, but he did. Thereby implying one author. But even with all this evidence, it is almost impossible to change long held beliefs regarding these letters. They weren’t genuine Zodiac communication (or hoaxed either), they were just misinterpreted as the Zodiac Killer through flawed handwriting analysis, as probably were the Bates letters. They also dismissed the 1987 letter, which they thought was copied from the 1978 letter. But what they didn’t do was compare the 1987 Vallejo Times-Herald envelope with the July 31st 1969 Vallejo Times-Herald envelope, which they didn’t have available in 1987. Deferring to hand writing or document examiners as the arbiter of truth is flawed. Just ask 100 document examiners whether Patsy Ramsey authored the 2 1/2 page ransom note and see if you get a concensus. There are better ways to authenticate the “Zodiac” letters than just relying on handwriting. The use of handwriting should be used in conjunction with other methods as an overall package. Check out “Daubert” and American law regarding the rules of handwriting testimony in the US court system.  

Oh I don’t think it is handwriting alone, just what they said about the grouping of letters by the same author signing himself the Zodiac and the reason given that the letters seem to have stopped. Which seems to place it in the square of the Atlanta communications, IMO. It also explains why they kept it quiet because that’s quite a specific spot to tie in with Riverside in 1966.

Credit to Tom for bringing to light this information from the Riverside Police Homicide Cold Case Unit regarding the Bates letters. It is always important to feature new developments, despite the fact more information would be helpful. I know people are actively seeking this. The wording in the statement is extremely ambiguous, so hopefully this will be clarified in due course. What isn’t ambiguous, is the SLA postmark date of February 3rd 1974 in the very first two FBI files (not later, and incorrectly compiled lists). Despite this information being readily available for all to see, many still persist with the erroneous date of February 14th 1974. Strange how different standards are applied. 

Since they referred to the mailings that were signed Zodiac we can dismiss the mailings that weren’t. SLA, Red Phantom for example are not the ones. That is part of the criteria I used in my elimination process.