Side note:" Inconclusive" keeps being thrown around as a nail in the coffin NO. It means unsure. Could be could not be.

It is? By whom? For my money you’re absolutely right: It means unsure. That is all I have ever claimed.

You think a defense attorney would whip out that FBI document? "We have inconclusive evidence that the letter writer may have….."

@Norse, a single question for you, with either a yes or no answer. Do you believe that Morrill was wrong about the desktop poem link to Z?

Yes.

Next question, besides your ‘opinion’, do you base this on anything? I’m curious what you see or don’t see, or what your training is in questioned docs examination, that makes you think Sherwood Morrill was wrong, I’d like to hear it.

Side note:" Inconclusive" keeps being thrown around as a nail in the coffin NO. It means unsure. Could be could not be.

It is? By whom? For my money you’re absolutely right: It means unsure. That is all I have ever claimed.

You think a defense attorney would whip out that FBI document? "We have inconclusive evidence that the letter writer may have….."

Of course not. But again, it leans more towards backing Morrill than it does Shimoda

My Gut feeling is, that if Zodiac was caught today, and found Guilty, and admitted to the Bates writing, people would still doubt the connection

My Gut feeling is, that if Zodiac was caught today, and found Guilty, and admitted to the Bates writing, people would still doubt the connection

There is no doubt a connection. It’s just figuring out what that connection is.

Some think Zodiac wrote all of it (Riverside), some of it, or none of it.

Some think Zodiac killed Cheri, some think not. Regardless, Zodiac will always be connected to Cheri.

I hope one day to know the truth and would have no problem saying I was wrong. It’s all just opinions and mine are certainly not above anyone else’s. People will always disagree until we know the truth and the hostilities of those who disagree will show through defensive tone of not seeing the other sides (obvious) logic.

Next question, besides your ‘opinion’, do you base this on anything? I’m curious what you see or don’t see, or what your training is in questioned docs examination, that makes you think Sherwood Morrill was wrong, I’d like to hear it.

I base my doubt on these factors:

1. The desktop poem was written on a…desktop. That’s an unusual exemplar. I don’t know how Morrill reasoned regarding this. We don’t know a) what he actually had to say about the exemplar and the printing (we only have his conclusion, via the CADOJ report), or b) whether he even examined the actual surface (or just a photo of it).

2. Others, who actually do know something about examining writing samples, have concluded that there are several letter formations in the desktop poem which do not appear in any other (known) Z missives.

3. Handwriting/printing analysis is not an exact science. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

4. Morrill’s conclusion is controversial. It has been questioned both by amateurs and professionals.

5. Morrill’s credentials as an expert on Z’s handwriting are not flawless. He clearly f***ed up pretty badly on the ’78 letter.

6. The nature of the poem itself is something I have a hard time getting past. To me the most natural assumption is that it’s a poem about suicide composed by a female author. Which makes it hard to simply accept that it was written by Z given points 1-5.

That’s pretty much it. And for your information I have never pretended to know a damn thing about handwriting analysis beyond what I’ve picked up from general Z studies. If anything I have gone out of my way to stress that I’m not an expert. I have even repeatedly stated that I generally respect Sherwood Morrill. That doesn’t mean I will blindly accept his verdict when the latter is controversial – and the science itself is no science at all.

Next question, besides your ‘opinion’, do you base this on anything? I’m curious what you see or don’t see, or what your training is in questioned docs examination, that makes you think Sherwood Morrill was wrong, I’d like to hear it.

I base my doubt on these factors:

1. The desktop poem was written on a…desktop. That’s an unusual exemplar. I don’t know how Morrill reasoned regarding this. We don’t know a) what he actually had to say about the exemplar and the printing (we only have his conclusion, via the CADOJ report), or b) whether he even examined the actual surface (or just a photo of it).

2. Others, who actually do know something about examining writing samples, have concluded that there are several letter formations in the desktop poem which do not appear in any other (known) Z missives.

3. Handwriting/printing analysis is not an exact science. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

4. Morrill’s conclusion is controversial. It has been questioned both by amateurs and professionals.

5. Morrill’s credentials as an expert on Z’s handwriting are not flawless. He clearly f***ed up pretty badly on the ’78 letter.

6. The nature of the poem itself is something I have a hard time getting past. To me the most natural assumption is that it’s a poem about suicide composed by a female author. Which makes it hard to simply accept that it was written by Z given points 1-5.

That’s pretty much it. And for your information I have never pretended to know a damn thing about handwriting analysis beyond what I’ve picked up from general Z studies. If anything I have gone out of my way to stress that I’m not an expert. I have even repeatedly stated that I generally respect Sherwood Morrill. That doesn’t mean I will blindly accept his verdict when the latter is controversial – and the science itself is no science at all.

Touching in your points, 1 by 1:

1) Do you know whether or not a wooden desk can be used to do a proper writing exam?

2)Can you cite sources for this statement?

3)You are right, writing is not an exact science, but if we use that thinking, isn’t true that many of the Z letters are not really from Z? Especially since the Z letters were ruled as Z letters by Sherwood? Are we to pick and choose which ones we accept or do not accept?

4) Would you not agree, that while not a solid verification of Sherwood’s findings, the FBI findings seem to support his thinking and if anything, support his findings over Shimoda’s?

5)Again, I do not disagree with you Sherwood was human, but technically, the writing on the 78 letter may actually have been from Z, even if Z did not mail that letter, so in a way, Morrill was still right.

6)I won’t question the meaning of the desk, that means different things to different people.

Norse, I am not picking on you or calling you out, please don’t think that. It’s just that perfect or not, Sherwood was the State’s top writing expert. He was a trained Pro with years of experience. So to question why or why not somebody disagrees with them is fair.

Touching in your points, 1 by 1:

1) Do you know whether or not a wooden desk can be used to do a proper writing exam?

2)Can you cite sources for this statement?

3)You are right, writing is not an exact science, but if we use that thinking, isn’t true that many of the Z letters are not really from Z? Especially since the Z letters were ruled as Z letters by Sherwood? Are we to pick and choose which ones we accept or do not accept?

4) Would you not agree, that while not a solid verification of Sherwood’s findings, the FBI findings seem to support his thinking and if anything, support his findings over Shimoda’s?

5)Again, I do not disagree with you Sherwood was human, but technically, the writing on the 78 letter may actually have been from Z, even if Z did not mail that letter, so in a way, Morrill was still right.

Norse, I am not picking on you or calling you out, please don’t think that. It’s just that perfect or not, Sherwood was the State’s top writing expert. He was a trained Pro with years of experience. So to question why or why not somebody disagrees with them is fair.

1. I know that the pressure applied by the writer and the nature of the surface used have potentially significant impact on how letters are formed. Comparing one exemplar which was produced on a varnished wooden surface with another produced on paper with a felt pen, is not a like-for-like comparison. Which is why I would like to see what Morrill had to say about this – in detail. I would also like to know whether he actually examined the surface itself or just a photo of it – because that too might be relevant here.

2. There are several posts on this in the desktop thread. Besides, we know that Morrill’s verdict was questioned – which is why Shimoda was called in. So, someone clearly didn’t think his analysis was spot on – someone more professional than any of us.

3. Well, we have to – don’t we? Or do we go with the ’78 letter too? There are reasons beyond handwriting which tie the confirmed Z letters to the crimes – that goes for all of them. It’s a matter of content, context, actual proof offered by Z, etc. None of that is present in the desktop poem.

4. No – not in a definite sense. The FBI did not confirm Morrill’s conclusion. If they had been sure beyond reasonable doubt that the exemplars were prepared by the same hand, THAT would have been the conclusion. They were not. Does the wording lean more towards “yes” than “no”? Yes, it does – but that isn’t enough.

5. This is an endless debate, really. But it was Morrill’s task, as an expert, to spot a forgery. Others did just that – including Shimoda. They spotted what he failed to spot – namely that the writer used a tracing technique of sorts and that the words were essentially copied from existing Z letters. Morrill did not catch this. Perhaps he was too eager to confirm – and not critical enough. It’s impossible for us to say without knowing the exact circumstances.

As for the bolded part, I’m glad to hear you say that. And yes, by all means, it’s fair to ask – of course it is. But it’s easy enough to flip that over and ask why you question Shimoda’s verdict: He was an expert too. Morrill’s successor was another one – and he didn’t confirm Morrill’s Riverside conclusions either, apparently (need a proper source here, so I’m not saying this is gospel *).

* Maybe he didn’t comment either way, but he is mentioned in the SFPD letter to the FBI.

Toschi took the ’78 straight to Shimoda. He failed to spot a forgery.

He concluded it was a forgery later on. As did three other experts. Morrill never relented.

Nobody’s saying Morrill was incompetent – or fooled by a ridiculously poor fake. The issue is that he insisted that the ’78 was the real thing.

I don’t know how productive these endless back-and-forths are, to be honest. If we all agree – as we seemingly do – that handwriting analysis is not an exact science and that it will never be the decisive part of…anything in the Z case, perhaps we should focus on the non-writing aspects of Bates/Riverside.

…perhaps we should focus on the non-writing aspects of Bates/Riverside.

Makes you wonder if LE had (although it would have been irresponsible of them not to), the case would be solved by now. I think we can all agree a lot of what he wrote was pure hogwash.

Sherwood Morrill was retired for almost 5 years when the 78 letter came in. He retired in December 1973 I think. As such, I wonder if he examined original docs, or copies, and wasn’t making his mind up from photocopies. I am not sure they would allow hims to examine original documents as a ‘civilian’.

EDIT: I pulled a goof — Toschi made photocopies in case Shimoda wanted to hold onto the original, but Shimoda confirmed it after only 30 minutes…according to Yellow Book. Morrill isn’t mentioned until Graysmith gets to the hoax fiasco. Graysmith was buddies was Toschi, so I assume that came straight from Toschi himself (?).

Later, YB mentions a "David DeGarmo, Pleasant Hill handwriting expert" as being in agreement with Shimoda and Morrill. At any rate, it appears that Toschi ran with Shimoda’s initial pronouncement. Shimoda was not with SFPD, he was with USPS, so maybe Sherwood did see the original? (For the record, I think it’s a terrible fake and I can’t understand how anyone confirmed it.)

EDIT: I pulled a goof — Toschi made photocopies in case Shimoda wanted to hold onto the original, but Shimoda confirmed it after only 30 minutes…according to Yellow Book. Morrill isn’t mentioned until Graysmith gets to the hoax fiasco. Graysmith was buddies was Toschi, so I assume that came straight from Toschi himself (?).

Later, YB mentions a "David DeGarmo, Pleasant Hill handwriting expert" as being in agreement with Shimoda and Morrill. At any rate, it appears that Toschi ran with Shimoda’s initial pronouncement. Shimoda was not with SFPD, he was with USPS, so maybe Sherwood did see the original? (For the record, I think it’s a terrible fake and I can’t understand how anyone confirmed it.)

Heh – yes: content wise I find it pretty terrible too.

I don’t know if we should trust YB on this, by the way. But it doesn’t really matter: the crux of the matter is that we now know the letter was a fake (we have DNA on top of four experts). Morrill sticks out like a sore thumb as the only one who kept insisting it was real. That’s what I find problematic – not that he was fooled initially (by the handwriting, which was by all accounts a pretty good imitiation of the real thing).

…perhaps we should focus on the non-writing aspects of Bates/Riverside.

Makes you wonder if LE had (although it would have been irresponsible of them not to), the case would be solved by now. I think we can all agree a lot of what he wrote was pure hogwash.

This part of it is interesting, I think.

I wonder how the SFPD reasoned to begin with: A poem was discovered, looked pretty grotesque, mentioned cutting and blood and whatnot, and Bates’ murder was a recent event. RPD seemed to think it was related. * Some years later the SFPD gets on the Riverside connection, presents the thing to Morrill, who confirms it is Z. Fine. Now, what’s the next logical step?

For me – disregarding a closer inspection of the actual poem for now – the obvious move is to focus intensely on Riverside: students, employees, people who were connected to the library.

Now, say they did just that – and it yielded nothing (it obviously didn’t). What’s the consequence? Do they still believe Z was connected to the library – or do they abandon that angle? The latter seems more likely, since Toschi kept looking into plenty of people who clearly were not connected to the library. But what happens to the desktop poem if the hypothesis is that Z was NOT connected to the library? That’s what bothers me, as Columbo would say. Did the SFPD think the poem referred to Bates? In 1970? In the late seventies?

And then there’s the controversy. Who decides to get Shimoda involved? Morrill’s verdict was never questioned, apparently, by the SFPD as such (the letter to the FBI is basically an effort to confirm the conclusion they, the SFPD, have at least partly based their views on Bates on) – so who has a problem with it?

* There are numerous problems with simply assuming that the poem refers to Bates – and it goes far beyond the suicide/murder debate. Even if we assume it IS a “sick” or “sinister” poem, we have to ignore several patently incongruous details in order to conclude that it has anything to do with Bates specifically.