I think what T is suggesting is this: The author produced two copies from the same original, using multiple carbons to make it hard to trace the machine he used. He sent one to the Enterprise and one to the RPD. Both copies were poor, the print faint, hard to read, etc.

What we keep seeing are reproductions or rather reconstructions of these “original” copies, made by the cops and by someone at the Enterprise.

The discrepancies between the two versions may be the result of different people interpreting/reconstructing the copy in question, rather than an actual discrepancy in the words used, etc.

It’s an interesting – and at first glance plausible – theory. The question is whether it actually flies – the different lengths of the signature lines, for instance, is that compatible with this theory? It could be – depends, I suppose, on how poor these copies actually were.

Anyway, if these are indeed two different versions – how do we explain it? Why send two different (but not radically different by any means) versions?

Anyway, if these are indeed two different versions – how do we explain it? Why send two different (but not radically different by any means) versions?

Ah yes. Back to my original question lol.

Yes, what Norse wrote…a much better way with words than I.

Obviously these clear transcriptions are not the originals. I think when we see different spacing, etc., it is because they were transcribed by someone else in an easy to read format. I’m not suggesting words such as "twich’ were spelled wrong by the transcriber–just that some differences could be easily justified.

It would make (more) sense to me if they received the same letter via the carbon copies. The report seems to suggest that.

Ah yes. Back to my original question lol.

Hehe, yes – sorry about that: But speaking about originals…well, If this had been handwritten letters, you could explain the differences easily enough: He had the thing down in essence but wrote it partly from memory the second time around (sort of like Z with the three-part letter).

But this is a guy with a typewriter – and not only a typewriter, but definitely a batch of carbon paper to go with it. There’s no sense in not simply copying the original message, is there?

If there are two different versions, then the guy sat down, wrote one version – and blurred it down through multiple carbons. Then he sat down and wrote it again, from memory or whatever, and repeated the carbon process. I don’t think that makes sense, personally.

I submitted an FOIA request today for copies of both confession letters & both envelopes. Fingers crossed, guess we will know in a month or so

I submitted an FOIA request today for copies of both confession letters & both envelopes. Fingers crossed, guess we will know in a month or so

That’s great, morf – really appreciate that effort. Fingers crossed, as you say.

I submitted an FOIA request today for copies of both confession letters & both envelopes. Fingers crossed, guess we will know in a month or so

Thank you, oh King of the FOIA.

I don’t know if this will help. An image of the letter with the Enterprise envelope appeared in the March 1971 issue of Argosy. Morf posted that here-

http://zodiackillersite.com/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=97

Nope but thanks for the link/suggestion. It’s a larger image but the resolution is the same and the add to that the loss due to it being printed – it’s technically worse lol. As if that were possible. Would be sooooooo good if we get clearer images.

Well, there is a partial transcription in the text of the article. It says it’s faithful to spelling and whatnot……..

Well, there is a partial transcription in the text of the article. It says it’s faithful to spelling and whatnot……..

Stop cheating. You know I only look at the pictures.

In fairness the article could be faithful to the spelling of a recreation, not to the spelling of the document itself. So, that particular statement doesn’t mean much, in my humble.

And it means even less when we consider what we actually know, or seem to know, viz. that the document itself (or rather the pair of documents) was a copy of the actual source text – possibly a very poor and in parts ambiguous copy.

It’s just a confused mess, really. We need to see what the original letters, received by the paper and the police, actually looked like.

Norse that’s very true, it could be a photo of a letter that was recreated. Two things that I feel are in its favor for it being a photo of the original are, the photo credit in the Argosy is to the Press Enterprise and their photographer and the letter appears to have been folded unlike the other letters that have been posted in this thread. But honestly, I don’t know for sure if it’s the original and I agree that it is a confused mess!

Is there any idea of what the envelope looks like? It’s hard to understand how Morrill could have verified that the envelope addressed to the newspaper was from Zodiac. Perhaps the envelope to RPD was written differently.

I don’t recall ever coming across a pic of the RPD envelope.

Ok, maybe I do recall. This is a (very poor) pic of the envelope from the FBI files. I think it was pulled directly from the post office (did not have a stamp affixed) and delivered to RPD.

Helps a bit when viewed with the other envelope for reference. I’m assuming it says "HOMiCiDe DeTAiL RiVERSiDe" even though it looks like DeTALE I think the second to last letter is a lowercase i. S’got the funky i’s.

And looky what else I dug up.

VICTOM