If this is their belief, why did they withdraw their request for handwriting analysis from the FBI (according to the online FBI files), giving as a reason: that the news media blamed Toschi for forging the April 1978 letter?

gestr This might help with that question.

viewtopic.php?f=78&t=36

It seems that 3 out of four document examiners declared the letter not to be from Zodiac so maybe SFPD figured they had enough of an opinion that they withdrew their request from the FBI.

Also read the articles in this thread about how the accusations that Toschi forged Zodiac letters came down. My take is that there was a lot of politicking going on as well as someone who wanted to ensure sales of a recently written book.

viewtopic.php?f=84&t=25

And then there is Armistead Maupin’s account of the ordeal.

viewtopic.php?f=84&t=163

Hi-

Isn’t the 2002 DNA dead and buried yet? It’s like a zombie. I can’t keep reiterating all the steps that led to this conclusion but there are threads everywhere that address that DNA. Myself, Lyndon Lafferty, Ray Nixon, Kevin Fagan of the Chronicle (see his article from when Debbie Perez came forward that quotes someone at SFPD saying the DNA "may not be reliable") and AK all contributed info over time that cast serious doubt on it. It is not exclusionary, to say the least.

Holt was actually cagey about the DNA on the ABC show. She said that the comparison proved that Allen did not contribute the DNA they obtained from the envelope(s) they analyzed. She did not say that because of that fact Allen was excluded as being Z. So she was not being categorical about the DNA excluding ANYONE on the show. I think she knew or was concerned about its limitations. And with good reason…Ray told me that in 2002, Holt’s lab once again apparently confirmed the absence of saliva (first shown in the 1960s and 1970s when the letters first arrived!) on the envelopes, meaning that the sender did not lick the stamps and envelopes.

How many times have I said that…the sender did not lick the stamps and envelopes. Too many times to count…

Mike

….How many times have I said that…the sender did not lick the stamps and envelopes. Too many times to count…

Mike

Yes, but (as we’ve discussed) it appears the sender of the ’78 "Toschi" letter did. "DNA sample obtained"

http://www.zodiackiller.com/SFPDDNA.html

….How many times have I said that…the sender did not lick the stamps and envelopes. Too many times to count…

Mike

Yes, but (as we’ve discussed) it appears the sender of the ’78 "Toschi" letter did. "DNA sample obtained"

http://www.zodiackiller.com/SFPDDNA.html

All the more reason to think the 78 letter is fake

Hi-

Isn’t the 2002 DNA dead and buried yet? It’s like a zombie. I can’t keep reiterating all the steps that led to this conclusion but there are threads everywhere that address that DNA. Myself, Lyndon Lafferty, Ray Nixon, Kevin Fagan of the Chronicle (see his article from when Debbie Perez came forward that quotes someone at SFPD saying the DNA "may not be reliable") and AK all contributed info over time that cast serious doubt on it. It is not exclusionary, to say the least.

Holt was actually cagey about the DNA on the ABC show. She said that the comparison proved that Allen did not contribute the DNA they obtained from the envelope(s) they analyzed. She did not say that because of that fact Allen was excluded as being Z. So she was not being categorical about the DNA excluding ANYONE on the show. I think she knew or was concerned about its limitations. And with good reason…Ray told me that in 2002, Holt’s lab once again apparently confirmed the absence of saliva (first shown in the 1960s and 1970s when the letters first arrived!) on the envelopes, meaning that the sender did not lick the stamps and envelopes.

How many times have I said that…the sender did not lick the stamps and envelopes. Too many times to count…

Mike

Mike, I have read your opinions on the DNA, lack of saliva, etc, and want to be clear on one point, in the Bill Curtis documentary, the DNA scientist states that Allen’s DNA did NOT match the DNA from the letter, but I don’t recall her mentioning what kind of DNA was on the letter. If not saliva, was it a hair?

Hi-

Morf, the DNA on the 1978 letter is supposedly what proves that letter was NOT from Z. First of all, he did not lick his stamps and envelopes, so it is an odd man out. And as I’ve pointed out many times, Alan Keel, who did the early DNA testing on the SFPD evidence, told both me and LL that DNA matching the 1978 letter was found on ONE of the 1974 letters. We still can’t find out which one, though! They are both considered forgeries. So you have to be careful, IMHO, if you make a case about a suspect that involves evidence from all four of those 1974 letters because one is the odd man out. I was really surprised that LL made hay out of all of them in his book, as I recall.

The little hair that was shown on the back of the stamp from the Stine envelope has never, to my knowledge, been analyzed. And it has no root, so you’d be looking at mtDNA, anyway. It would not be comparable to the nuclear DNA you get from an oral swab. I don’t think the technology is there yet to analyze such a short piece of hair but I know a forensics but real well and will ask him.

Mike

What about the ones that read "cells found"?

While it might not be DNA, wouldn’t that mean they were still licked? This was before sticky stamps.

Hi-

Cells can get on a letter by other means than licking the stamp or flap. The presence or absence of amylase on the stamp/flap determines whether saliva is present, not just cells. and to state it once again, they apparently started testing for amylase in 1969, as soon as the first letters arrived. Without amylase, the cells could have been a contaminant from the outside of the stamp.

However, one of the 1974 letters is considered a forgery AND the only letter with cells found on it from that year IS the Exorcist letter! Do I dare? It is blasphemy to suggest that the Exorcist letter is the "second forgery" because of the sacred palm print. Hey, Z never left a palm print on any other letter, so maybe that suggests that he did not write that one, either!

Mike

I was reading about the ’78 letter last night and Tru-tv had this little caveat to add at the end of the first paragraph on this page. It mentions on the preceeding page that the ‘Exorcist’ letter had fallen under suspicion but this last sentence seems to claim that it was eventually decided it was real. By whom I don’t know, just reporting what I’ve read.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/seri … ac/28.html

By August, no fewer than four experts, including Keith Woodward, former chief of the LAPD’s document department; Robert Prouty, the specialist bypassed by Toschi in April; his BCII colleague Terrence Pascoe; and John Shimoda, the Postal Service expert who had initially confirmed the letter; had determined that the April letter was a fake, "a carefully drawn copy of the true Zodiac printing …. constructed by a person that had access to printed letters of the Zodiac".1� The lone holdout to this finding was the retired Sherwood Morrill, whose bitter statements to the media revealed a determined loyalty to Toschi and a great disrespect for Gain. The letter of January 1974, which had also fallen under suspicion, was deemed to be genuine.

Hi-

That was by handwriting. DNA may have had a different–and unexpected– story to tell.

Mike

Hi-

Cells can get on a letter by other means than licking the stamp or flap. The presence or absence of amylase on the stamp/flap determines whether saliva is present, not just cells. and to state it once again, they apparently started testing for amylase in 1969, as soon as the first letters arrived. Without amylase, the cells could have been a contaminant from the outside of the stamp.

However, one of the 1974 letters is considered a forgery AND the only letter with cells found on it from that year IS the Exorcist letter! Do I dare? It is blasphemy to suggest that the Exorcist letter is the "second forgery" because of the sacred palm print. Hey, Z never left a palm print on any other letter, so maybe that suggests that he did not write that one, either!

Mike

Thanks for the reply Mike…I know you’ve answered a lot of questions about this and I appreciate your input.

The Exorcist letter looks so much like Zodiac’s handwriting, but nothing about this case, or the copycats involved surprise me.

Hi-

That was by handwriting. DNA may have had a different–and unexpected– story to tell.

Mike

Ah, yes. Fair point.

Although……just one more question and I apologise if this has been answered already, even on this page but I gotta ask while it’s in my head. Would this DNA be as a result of testing after 1978 because presumably whoever faked the ’78 letter would have had their hands all over those letters. If it is fake and if that’s how it was done, by access to ALL of the letters, or a good chunk of them (I have seen what I believe to be evidence that access to all of the letters was required in the handwriting BTW and FWIW)

If I had to choose one of those 74 letters being faked, I would personally go with the ‘SLA’ letter. The Phantom letter has some stuff that looks, like Z, but some stuff thats a bit different, and the Exorcist letter looks like z to me. For me, I have very little doubts that the ‘citizen’ letter is real, and as Trav and I agree upon,I have little doubt it was authored by the person that etched the desk poem in Riverside(Zodiac)

Hi Morf-

Well, your point raises the issue of the fact that the "sla" letter is not one of the ones that was even tested for cells. At least it is not in the chart. The only 1974 letter there is the Exorcist letter. So it is an endless circle of a discussion that will keep going round until someone from in a position to know tells us the answer. We can speculate and theorize and rationalize all day but there is no apparent answer at this point.

Mike

Hi-

There is one more idea I can add as food for thought: There is *one person* whose name has come up time and again as possibly having forged the 1978 letter, and he suffered for those claims. The presumed goal of a forger sending a letter like the 1978 letter would have possibly been to reinvigorate a dying investigation. After all, Z had not written a letter since either May or July 1974. That is three years and change. When the Exorcist letter arrived, although it was not written like a true "Z" letter with the correct opening phrase, it did have the effect of reviving a dead investigation once it was revealed as a "Z" letter. Z had not written in nearly three years at that point, so the investigation had gone a bit cold.

So the Exorcist letter can at least be construed as having had the same goal as what Keel said is a known forgery in the 1978 letter.

Mike