I have some thoughts on the differences in the poem and I’m becoming more and more convinced that they are down to the surface and the pen. Anywho that’s for later. I said earlier that the only place he used that ‘K’ after the desk poem was on the SLA card. That’s not strictly true. It’s on the back of the Halloween Card as well.

I was going to label them on this example but I probably don’t need to. That’s not the only reason though. Look at them and you can see the subtle differences he employed but when you do look from one to the other notice how tricky it is to actually focus on that. You look at one and think ok I can see how they are similar then you look at the other and think … hold on, that is similar too but I know it’s different. This is because they are both different but in very minor ways and its their over all form, proportions and inter-character relationships that are also similar. Fancy way of saying habits basically so whilst there are construction variations they are all tied together by similar habits and some repetition of construction.

Thanks Trav, great work.

The comparisons show the closeness and similarities to me. The difference in writing instrument, surface, etc could explain any small difference,although I don’t see much differences

Like I said I am still undecided.

However, I do concede that-it is possible the letters are not a

complete/great match because the individual was writing the rh poem

at an awkward angle. Possibly– if writing on the surface vertically if it

were a pop up desk. Rather than on a flat suface. Most likely there

would be a difference in the angle/direction and shaping of some of the

letters.

S’funny how you don’t notice things when they are right in front of you. I’m talking about myself btw in case anyone get thinks I mean that in a cheeky way lol. The ‘offset’ dot above the ‘i’ in sick. The are also ones in the poem’s title which aren’t and that’s consistent too with Zodiac’s employment of them. I thought I’d do a little visual and this is another thing that probably doesn’t get taken into account enough. Regarding the angle of the writing. The closest and most visually relevant examples for Zodiac’s use of the offset dot I could find in this instance were in the Belli letter and the Marco letter. Why? Because he writes upright in those. He changes his writing angle. Maybe we don’t ignore that but I certainly forget to point it out when we are discussing differences in angles of writing. That’s something we know he has done.

Excuse the ‘cross’ shape it wasn’t deliberate lol. I wasn’t trying to add zync. The black on white examples are from the Marco letter, the colored ones from the Belli letter.

Trav, this is what drives me crazy about handwriting analysis. To the casual observer, looking at the sample below might convince one to believe the person associated with this penmanship quite possibly could have written the desktop poem. The little idiosyncrasies seem to be there, and one could argue that if the person giving the sample were forced to write at a different angle, on a less than smooth surface, the result could be a legitimate match.

(Handwriting attributed A. L. Allen)

Question is how much stock can be placed in handwriting comparisons and can such seemingly subjective opinions lead to a reasonable conclusion?

For the record, I’m not trying to be cheeky here!
I have always admired and lingered over the work you and other have done in handwriting comparisons. Very interesting stuff.

I agree and it’s been my experience that there are many, many examples of writing that in one way or another bear a close, if not, striking resemblance to Z’s writing. The ‘thing’ that I feel the desk has going for it is that there are quite a few similarities on different levels. Most writing examples don’t have that. They usually fail at some point and on something reasonably major and consistent.

I can show you isolated examples of writing that look really similar to Z’s but they absolutely aren’t. It can’t just be a case of looking similar there has to be a pattern of habits. That just keeps coming through for me in the poem when compared to Z’s writing. Now we have to decide I guess at some point when is enough, enough? We could take it right down to the last molecule on the end of the ‘h’ and even then we would end up comparing molecules against other molecules from different samples.

I don’t personally need that poem to have been written by Z but I would like to know that I’ve explored enough of what we have to work with to be reasonable certain either way. I still have my doubts because there are none of us experts but I think we do pretty well with the skills we do have. What I have learned, if nothing else, from doing this stuff is that Z does have quite a few variations on his base habits. Even within one confirmed letter. It’s quite an interesting thing in some ways to see. He has multiple versions of certain characters that he employs reasonable fluidly throughout his writing.

One example, and that just ONE out of all of them is the ‘w’. There are, without sitting down and cataloging them at least three, and possibly more, variations on his ‘w’s alone. We see those same variations reflected in the desk poem so again, there’s one pattern reflected in just one character. That’s not conclusive in itself but there are more and they keep adding up.

Here’s his …. I don’t know mmmm…. ‘end-lift’ w? It’s not on it’s own either in the poem. It has his other variations too also reflected in the letters. Anywho here’s just that one for now.

That’s just one version of one character and it runs throughout all his letters and is present in the desk poem. In a few places as well but I’ve just used the example of it present in the title for now.

* Note as well that even within his accepted letters the variation in writing angle present in that variation of his lowercase ‘w’. All of these things have to considered and taken into account when considering any possible Z exemplar.

thinking a bit outside of the question at hand – what does it get us if z DID write the desktop poem? what does it get us if he didn’t? i still think too much time is spent trying to tie different crimes together, versus looking at one particular crime scene and trying to solve THAT one. if you figure out who killed the kids at lhr then you’ve likely got your man regardless of decrypting ciphers, comparing handwriting, tracking the whereabouts of random people fifty years ago, etc.

thinking a bit outside of the question at hand – what does it get us if z DID write the desktop poem? what does it get us if he didn’t? i still think too much time is spent trying to tie different crimes together, versus looking at one particular crime scene and trying to solve THAT one. if you figure out who killed the kids at lhr then you’ve likely got your man regardless of decrypting ciphers, comparing handwriting, tracking the whereabouts of random people fifty years ago, etc.

I think you have asked a question and answered it.

If he wrote the poem then we have a definite area, location, time frame to explore out from in regards POI’s. If he didn’t then we can save ourselves some work at least but nothing is without a knock on effect in this case. If he didn’t write the desk then we have to look at how that affects the Bates letters, the confession letter and the LA Times letter.

There are multiple crime scenes with many, many aspects in each to explore in the hope that we can get some direction. This has been going on for years and many things get looked at, then re-looked at and it’s just the nature of it. If we could "figure out who killed the kids" then obviously that would be it solved but how do we "figure" that out? By looking at and debating everything. Some people look at official records, some at handwriting, some at newspaper clippings etc etc and at times those different areas cross over into possible avenues of investigation.

It might not be pretty but it’s how it works.

thinking a bit outside of the question at hand – what does it get us if z DID write the desktop poem? what does it get us if he didn’t? i still think too much time is spent trying to tie different crimes together, versus looking at one particular crime scene and trying to solve THAT one. if you figure out who killed the kids at lhr then you’ve likely got your man regardless of decrypting ciphers, comparing handwriting, tracking the whereabouts of random people fifty years ago, etc.

I basically tend to agree. Multi-layers of speculation, coincidence, and frankly lack of real proof run ruff shod over this case. With that being said, take away the ciphers, taunting letters, sloppy police work, etc., and these few murders would be lost to history. There were
record amounts of killings in Ca. during this timeframe.
Many of which are unsolved, yet they are all but forgotten. Without all the fluff and clutter surrounding the zodiac, it’s just a box of folders in a dark basement somewhere…

thinking a bit outside of the question at hand – what does it get us if z DID write the desktop poem? what does it get us if he didn’t? i still think too much time is spent trying to tie different crimes together, versus looking at one particular crime scene and trying to solve THAT one. if you figure out who killed the kids at lhr then you’ve likely got your man regardless of decrypting ciphers, comparing handwriting, tracking the whereabouts of random people fifty years ago, etc.

I know what you mean.

It’s damn hard, though. Because the one, standout feature of ALL the presumed Z crimes is that they are – from an investigatory perspective – linked to the others.

For me, the big one is Stine. That’s the one we know least about in terms of police reports, the one with the greatest potential for digging up something which was overlooked at the time. And the one where Z seemingly made the greatest – potential – blunders. And was seen. By multiple witnesses.

Tangent, I know.

Back to the desktop.

…and on that note, I guess the reason I’m so hung up on the desktop is that I want to either include it or exclude it definitely. As it stands, it hangs in the air – as something which is either crucial (potentially the biggest clue in the whole case) or completely irrelevant. It’s incredibly frustrating.

S’funny how you don’t notice things when they are right in front of you. I’m talking about myself btw in case anyone get thinks I mean that in a cheeky way lol. The ‘offset’ dot above the ‘i’ in sick. The are also ones in the poem’s title which aren’t and that’s consistent too with Zodiac’s employment of them. I thought I’d do a little visual and this is another thing that probably doesn’t get taken into account enough. Regarding the angle of the writing. The closest and most visually relevant examples for Zodiac’s use of the offset dot I could find in this instance were in the Belli letter and the Marco letter. Why? Because he writes upright in those. He changes his writing angle. Maybe we don’t ignore that but I certainly forget to point it out when we are discussing differences in angles of writing. That’s something we know he has done.

Excuse the ‘cross’ shape it wasn’t deliberate lol. I wasn’t trying to add zync. The black on white examples are from the Marco letter, the colored ones from the Belli letter.

WoW! Great find. The nay sayers will say…. ‘Just another coincidence’ Awesome stuff Trav!

thinking a bit outside of the question at hand – what does it get us if z DID write the desktop poem? what does it get us if he didn’t? i still think too much time is spent trying to tie different crimes together, versus looking at one particular crime scene and trying to solve THAT one. if you figure out who killed the kids at lhr then you’ve likely got your man regardless of decrypting ciphers, comparing handwriting, tracking the whereabouts of random people fifty years ago, etc.

We dramatically shrink the Suspect pool to any Suspect that was in Riverside in 66-67

…and on that note, I guess the reason I’m so hung up on the desktop is that I want to either include it or exclude it definitely. As it stands, it hangs in the air – as something which is either crucial (potentially the biggest clue in the whole case) or completely irrelevant. It’s incredibly frustrating.

I made a comment once that pretty much mirrors that. That’s why I work on the damn thing.

It was my original intention when I first started this journey to try and explore from a visual point of view some of the aspects of this case. Bring what little I could offer to the table and from my own skillset and experience in some way maybe help. One of the many contentious points in this case has been this desk. It’s been a few years now and I’m still finding things to ‘explore’ concerning it. After all this time, for me, it still remains that there are more similarities than differences and whilst I might not know the exact reasons for those there are, I believe, not unreasonable hypotheses for them.

After all this time and changing thoughts and feelings regarding the desk the differences are starting to take on an alternative aspect. Rather than just being flat out differences therefore a game closer they are more now a question of what can they tell us, if anything. For me anyway. One day I’ll run out of things to explore in the affirmative then I’ll explore it from the negative perspective. That’s proper analysis, so ‘they’ tell me.

Even that ‘dot’ in the ‘o’ gets a repeat outing throughout the letters. It looks to be how he finishes off certain instances of it and depending I imagine on the particular styling, even of that one character as it’s penned, and the pen nib and the surface it sometimes appears almost as a dot in the centre. The one on the desk certainly looks like a deliberate dot but I suspect/suggest it is the ‘on wood’ version of the other examples I have shown here. I’ve picked out a few for enlargement on the right that ‘visually’ look closest. There are quiet a few examples/variations of it and that’s not all of them. Those are just the ones I could be bothered lifting lol.