Here’s a thought that might have been thunk: How about comparing the desktop poem with Zero’ first known letter or piece of writing? Like so: a line of the poem, underneath which is placed matching individual letters from Z’s known hand-printing; repeat, line by line. Then place the desktop poem and the constructed poem side by side. This way, individual letters could be compared, as well as the overall appearances of the poem/reconstructed poem.

Started a few days ago. It’s gonna take a while. I’m attempting a re-look at the poem. I will be, at some point looking at my original work and reconstructing it in more succinct fashion. At this stage I am going through each and every individual letter in the poem and comparing it to every occurrence in the ‘accepted’ Zodiac mailings. Even at this early stage it’s proving a very interesting exercise. It has, as it usually does, led to seeing things in the mailings themselves that clarify, for me, why they were suspected/accepted. Things I hadn’t previously noted. It’s also making it more transparent as to the variations Z employed with certain characters although that will probably be a later stage derivative of the process.

It’s looking very interesting.

Can’t wait to see what you have come up with

Here’s a thought that might have been thunk: How about comparing the desktop poem with Zero’ first known letter or piece of writing? Like so: a line of the poem, underneath which is placed matching individual letters from Z’s known hand-printing; repeat, line by line. Then place the desktop poem and the constructed poem side by side. This way, individual letters could be compared, as well as the overall appearances of the poem/reconstructed poem.

Started a few days ago. It’s gonna take a while. I’m attempting a re-look at the poem. I will be, at some point looking at my original work and reconstructing it in more succinct fashion. At this stage I am going through each and every individual letter in the poem and comparing it to every occurrence in the ‘accepted’ Zodiac mailings. Even at this early stage it’s proving a very interesting exercise. It has, as it usually does, led to seeing things in the mailings themselves that clarify, for me, why they were suspected/accepted. Things I hadn’t previously noted. It’s also making it more transparent as to the variations Z employed with certain characters although that will probably be a later stage derivative of the process.

It’s looking very interesting.

Already did this many months ago.

Took the "poem" and copy-pasted random letters from random Zodiac letters, using Photoshop. Even created a desktop poem in blue ink, pinkish paper, which was cool and creepy.

The result? About half the letters look like a good match, less than half do, and the remainder are iffy, depending on the chosen letter.

That was my result.

Also made my own "authentic" 408 in paper and blue ink using a custom cipher.

The things you can "learn" when you’re bored.

Something I’ve never really taken proper notice of before: If I’m reading the relevant documents correctly, Shimoda didn’t simply conclude, like the FBI did, that the Riverside material was inconclusive – his verdict was that there was no match. In other words, he concluded that it wasn’t Z.

His conclusion then prompted a request for the FBI to examine the exemplars (again? I was under the impression that they’d already done this), which they did – and came up with (yet another?) “inconclusive” verdict.

What we have then, are three different verdicts:

Morrill: Yes
Shimoda: No
FBI: Inconclusive (possibly twice)

his verdict was that there was no match. In other words, he concluded that it wasn’t Z.

I suppose we would need clarification on ‘exactly’ what that means in context. I mean is Shimoda saying no match the equivalent to the FBI’s inclusive? As opposed to "no way, nothing matches, not even similar". I wouldn’t think it would be that so it must be the former except there’s perhaps some piece of information that we are not privy to. For instance pressure examinations in the writing etc (although that isn’t applicable in the case of the desk).

Everyone see’s things differently. Even examiners but the one thing that we can take from this. Z or not it’s close. Damn close to have caused such divisions of opinion.

So we’ve kinda got 1.5 for and 1.5 against.

Good question, Trav.

What exactly is the basis for the different conclusions reached? That’s what’s missing here. Morrill must have submitted reports, detailing his finds and his reasoning – but we don’t have these. Nor do we have Shimoda’s.

To me, from a layman’s perspective, the conclusion which makes the most sense (given the size and nature of the samples/exemplars) is the FBI one: Inconclusive. Not enough to go on, can’t possibly conclude either yea or nay based on the submitted material.

As for Shimoda, my impression is that his verdict was more "nay" than "inconclusive" – but I will go back and recheck the relevant documents.

From the SFPD’s perspective (and they were the ones requesting a sort of "final judgement" from the FBI) the Riverside material was determined to be prepared by Z, by Morrill: His verdict seems to have been, well, very much conclusive.

Then Shimoda came along – and examined the exemplars. This prompted the SFPD to request an examination from the FBI (the SFPD refer to the material as being "now disputed").

But what I can actually find in the form of documents/reports is that Shimoda concluded that the Bates notes ("She had to die") were NOT prepared by Zodiac. I can’t find any documentation as to his verdict on the desktop poem – hopefully someone can step in and enlighten us on this point. But it’s been my understanding for some time that he certainly did not confirm Morrill’s verdict regarding the desktop (but was his own verdict "nay" or "inconclusive"?)

My hunch/guess:

Desktop poem:

Morrill: Yes
Shimoda : Unknown, but it can’t be yes.
FBI: Inconclusive

Bates notes:

Morrill: Yes
Shimoda : No
FBI: Inconclusive

Which leaves us with the "confession letter" envelopes. I honestly can’t see how anyone could have concluded anything based on the exemplars, but the only (seemingly clear) verdict on these is the FBI’s and it is: Inconclusive.

As I’ve said before, I can’t fathom how Morrill could have possibly determined that the "confession" envelopes were prepared by Z – and so my preliminary conclusion is that he didn’t. What he confirmed was a) the desktop poem and b) the Bates notes.

One final point: Yet again I ask whether anyone knows if Morrill examined the actual desktop – rather than just a photo of it. It seems clear that what the FBI examined was a photo of the desktop, not the thing itself.

Howard Davis Posted this at zk.com today which pretty much sums it up,

"There has been discussion that the Riverside letters were only confirmed by State Examiner Sherwood Morrill. This statement by the FBI relates :"However,consistent hand printing characteristics were noted in the Q 85-Qc 100 letters* which indicate that one person may have prepared all of the letters, including the Riverside letters [11/29/66; 4/30/67 -3 ]and the message on the desk top[error -desk top underside or as the photographer that took all of the desk photos has affirmed several times-Toschi has also] in the Riverside case."
So it wasn’t just Morrill even though he was professionally world authority on Z’s writing"

Not sure how that sums up anything more than anyone else has already stated…a bunch of times.

"May have", "inconclusive"…and while Morrill was one of (if not) the best handwriting analysts when it came to Zodiac, it appears he failed with the April 1978 letter.

When it comes to the desktop poem, he could not use the skills he mentions he used when identifying the author of other communications: He couldn’t test the ink, the pressure…no paper, etc. While that doesn’t make him wrong, the desk top poem had to be at the top of the "inconclusive" list.

Not sure how that sums up anything more than anyone else has already stated…a bunch of times.

"May have", "inconclusive"…and while Morrill was one of (if not) the best handwriting analysts when it came to Zodiac, it appears he failed with the April 1978 letter.

When it comes to the desktop poem, he could not use the skills he mentions he used when identifying the author of other communications: He couldn’t test the ink, the pressure…no paper, etc. While that doesn’t make him wrong, the desk top poem had to be at the top of the "inconclusive" list.

I’m curious to see what the FBI had to say about the 78 letters? Do we know that? All I know is that the FBI seemed to think it was very possible that the desk & Bates letters were from Zodiac, and Morrill thought the same. State writing expert and FBI together, pretty strong case.

I know some people will never see the desk as being from Z

I’m curious to see what the FBI had to say about the 78 letters? Do we know that?

Can’t say that I recall anything about ’78 in the files – but it could easily be there.

Anyway THE ’78 letter was ruled out on DNA by all accounts, so it seems clear that Morrill was plain wrong about that one. *

* Unless I’m mistaken they determined that this letter was a fake BEFORE the "Zodiac DNA" was put together. So, they didn’t compare DNA from the ’78 letter to the Z sample. Which means that they must have compared it to a known person – who could not possibly be Z. That’s how I interpret it anyway.

As for the desktop poem/riverside material and the FBI, they did not confirm Morrill’s conclusion. That is the key part here as far as I’m concerned.

To say that "it wasn’t just Morrill" is to twist the facts as we know them. Morrill WAS the only one who concluded that Z prepared the exemplars in question. The FBI did not.

Morrill was also the only one who remained convinced that the ’78 letter was genuine. Four other experts ended up thinking otherwise. Not that I necessarily think any of that is hugely important – the business itself is not an exact science no matter how one twists and turns it – but when you combine those four experts (and the nature of their conclusion – they basically concluded that someone had carefully copied/traced Z’s writing) AND the DNA, well, I can’t see any reason whatsoever to go with Morrill.

It’s very well to say that Morrill was the foremost expert on Z’s handwriting/printing – but in all honesty there weren’t hundreds of them out there to begin with. He was the state QDE and as such the job naturally came his way. The other people involved here – such as Shimoda – were also experts in the field.

I’m not knocking Morrill frivolously here – I’m just saying that it’s easy to use him in a sort of "argument from authority", and that is dubious at the best of times. With Morrill, given the nature of the discipline itself, the dissent, the ’78 affair and the fact that he seems to have confirmed exemplars that the FBI, for instance, simply would not confirm on principle (the samples being far too small, etc.), it becomes even more dubious in my opinion. The LE representatives in the Z case clearly weren’t flawless – that goes for Morrill too.

There are two basic possibilities here, as far as the writing/printing and Morrill go: He was right – or he was wrong. Simple as that. Now, I’ll assume for the purpose of this exercise that he was right.

Premise: Morrill was right. Z wrote it.

What’s it about?

1. Suicide. The likeliest explanation, in my opinion. There is nothing in it which contradicts this interpretation. Why would Z write about suicide? Two possibilities: He was feeling low at the time. Or he was faking it (being sarcastic, call it what you will).

2. Murder. It’s a fantasy of some kind. Problems: The title – that’s the big one. It’s the title of a suicide poem. Who is sick of living? Who is unwilling to die? Furthermore, is the person whose red dress gets bloody the same one who doesn’t die, but is found (in time, presumably)? None of this smacks of murder/murder fantasy. The obvious interpretation is that all of the above refers to suicide.

3. Bates. Problems: The red dress. The title – and all the rest of it, really.

4. Nothing in particular. It’s just a vaguely dark poem left as an intentionally ambiguous “clew”. Problems: It conforms word-for-word to the standard of a suicide poem. Is this a coincidence?

Scenario 1: Z meant for the poem to be found. It was a “clew”. Problems: Why did he write something so ambiguous (at best)? Was he unaware that the poem reads like a conventional teenage effort to write a poem about suicide? Why didn’t he make it clearer that it was a message from a killer? Why did he write it on the underside/flipside of a desktop? It was a sheer coincidence that the poem was ever discovered. Additionally: If he meant for the poem to be found, this strongly indicates that he had no connection to the library. Which leaves us with the following: He appears as an outsider at the library, writes an ambiguous (at best) poem on the underside of a desktop, does not leave a single clear clue as to his persona (that he is, in fact, Z – or at least a killer), then leaves – and unless he was a complete idiot he must have left knowing that it was very possible that his entire, bizarre effort would go unnoticed.

Scenario 2: Z did not mean for it to be found. It was something he wrote for personal reasons which had nothing to do with his Z persona or his thirst for publicity. Problems: The implication of the above seems almost undeniable: He was connected to the library. He was a student. Or an employee. Or something of the sort. And why is that a problem? Because they didn’t catch him. He was right there, among a defined set of possible suspects – and they failed to catch him. They must have gone through that defined set with a fine comb after the connection was established. And nothing. On top of this we have the fact that he acknowledged the Riverside connection himself. He was actually a student/employee/whatever – and he came out and acknowledged just that, by implication, after Avery’s piece. Not immediately, that’s true, but he did acknowledge it. Is this likely? Bear in mind that this goes for scenario 2: If he wasn’t connected to the library, he could of course acknowledge the connection with no risk.*

* But then one might reasonably ask why he didn’t do so sooner, in no uncertain terms (which is what he did for all other known crimes).

Well, I think the desk was Z, so i will start off with that.

I don’t think he made the poem on purpose as a fake clue,and he would have no way of knowing it would be found or linked to the Bates case. I think it was simply dumb luck it was found and linked. I would like to know more about the man that found it as well.

As for the content of the desk, it’s open to opinion. While I can see where some people think it is related to suicide, I can also see personally where I think it is the writing of somebody with some twisted thoughts putting them to paper, and trying to make the poem sound dark. I don’t think the poem was necessarily about Cheri, and I think it’s possible that the twisted male(yes male, not female)Author, saw a girl in a red dress, whoever she was, and spent time thinking twisted thoughts about her & put them into words. I think it’s possible this poem was written before Cheri was killed, and before the Author(zodiac)killed anybody.

I know Tahoe disagreed with me on this next part, but I think a male is more likely to doodle & deface a desk by writing all over it. I think a Female is less likely to do it. I remember back to my days in high school in the 80’s when all the desk had heavy metal band names written on them, and pictures scrawled of creepy faces. In my school, it was obvious, these were all done by Boys.

To the most interesting part of the desk poem-the fact it was scrawled on the underneath part. That’s a side mystery all its own. Is it possible desks were turned upside down during class? Who likely would have access to write under the underside of the desk while it was turned upside down? Not sure, staff, or faculty of some sort?

As for the initials….since I think it is possible that the writer wrote this poem before any crimes, and not thinking it would be traced to him, I think the RH could be his true initials. (If only they read RS )I have looked at just about every Student with those initials in the RCC yearbooks from 1964-1966, as well as people with those initials from Ramona HS, and never found one that was solid enough to be placed in Vallejo area during 69. Then again, those initials could stand for anything I guess.

Most important questions, was this desk dusted for palm prints, finger prints, etc? While there were bound to be lots of prints on there, any that matched the prints under Cheri’s hood, or Zodiac case prints, would be of special interest.

Last question, where is that desktop today??? I have heard that the CA DOJ has it, but I am not sure.

I had written a long reply to this. My own thoughts. Got the feeling I’d said it all before in some form or another. I saved it. Here’s the condensed version.

"rh" is a character.

As for the initials….since I think it is possible that the writer wrote this poem before any crimes, and not thinking it would be traced to him, I think the RH could be his true initials. (If only they read RS )I have looked at just about every Student with those initials in the RCC yearbooks from 1964-1966, as well as people with those initials from Ramona HS, and never found one that was solid enough to be placed in Vallejo area during 69. Then again, those initials could stand for anything I guess.

Might be worth a (difficult and probably useless) try to contact some of the people with those initials regardless of a Bay Area connection. Maybe someone after all these years would cop-up to being the writer. Anyone up for that task?