Wasn’t Toschi exonerated though?

I don’t think Mike was referring to Toschi.

Saliva? or hair? for DNA? These do not yield DNA. DNA is nucleic acid, (deoxyribose nucleic acid, to be specific). It is found in the nucleus of cells. Look it up. Hair and Saliva do not have nuclei. (Plural of "nucleus").

What SFPD may realize is that skin cells, from the postman, mail clerks, office boys, editors, and policemen, who handled the letters and postcards, could have easily shed microscopic skin cells onto those letters. The back of the stamp (which I agree Z did NOT lick) could have had nucleated epithelial cells, not from the inside of his mouth, but from skin if someone handled that stamp before he dampened his paper towel at the faucet and used it to moisten the stamp to affix it to the letter.

Toschi did not write the ’78 letter. Sherwood Morrell, the top Z handwriting expert, says Z wrote it.

Saliva? or hair? for DNA? These do not yield DNA. DNA is nucleic acid, (deoxyribose nucleic acid, to be specific). It is found in the nucleus of cells. Look it up. Hair and Saliva do not have nuclei. (Plural of "nucleus").

What SFPD may realize is that skin cells, from the postman, mail clerks, office boys, editors, and policemen, who handled the letters and postcards, could have easily shed microscopic skin cells onto those letters. The back of the stamp (which I agree Z did NOT lick) could have had nucleated epithelial cells, not from the inside of his mouth, but from skin if someone handled that stamp before he dampened his paper towel at the faucet and used it to moisten the stamp to affix it to the letter.

Toschi did not write the ’78 letter. Sherwood Morrell, the top Z handwriting expert, says Z wrote it.

Pretty sure you can get DNA out of the root of the hair and of course cells from the mouth. That is why they swab inside cheeks. So DNA cells could be on a stamp.

Morrill saying Zodiac wrote the 1978 letter doesn’t make it fact. It just makes it his opinion.

They say DNA was obtained on the 1978 letter. If it was Zodiac, they have his DNA. I just don’t think it was.

You absolutely can get DNA from saliva. You can get mtDNA from hair.

Saliva itself is liquid that has no DNA. Saliva may contain cells that have DNA, but not necessarily. Hair only has DNA if it has the follicle attached. I doubt that Z rubbed the stamp on the inside of his cheek, nor that he licked it. That would have been too invasive for him, too much of an imposition.

Agreed. Saliva alone does not contain DNA. More often than not, however, it will contain cells that have come off the inside of the cheeks.

Gestr please don’t act like you know something if you don’t.

Saliva has DNA because it has cheek skin cells. That is why stamps can be tested and felons give a cheek swab and spit at a crime scene or on a spoon or cig can be tested.

Hair has mitochondrial mtDNA and hair roots have DNA.

Sorry. I stand corrected. I was thinking of pure saliva, not saliva with buccal cells. And I was unaware that hair shafts contain mtDNA.

I posted in anger without thinking. What really ticked me off is that Morrell said the 1978 letter was Z, but that wasn’t good enough for SFPD. They had to ask other experts, until they got the opinion they wanted. As I understand, Shimoda (or some other expert) originally agreed with Morrell, but then (perhaps he saw which way the wind was blowing), he revised his original expert opinion and gave the reverse as his newfound expert opinion.

Now, I’ve read on this board that the 1978 DNA matches the Exorcist letter DNA, so they want to throw the Exorcist letter into the fake pile.

This is unbelievable. They must not think Z is still dangerous.

My living POI has convinced me he’s Z. He know’s I know too much. Z’s still very dangerous–this is no time for the SFPD to be playing politics.