Hi folks, just getting started on this thread and here is a specific question regarding the DNA and fingerprints.
How many letters/envelopes were tested for DNA? Were all of them ones of absolutely positive provenance- i.e., did they contain a piece of Stine’s shirt?
And was a common DNA sample found? Did, say, the DNA from one envelope match DNA found on the stamp from the same or another letter?
It seems from what I have read that they only found a partial DNA sample from one stamp. I quake at the notion that this is being used to rule out ANY suspect without that partial profile matching another partial profile from another envelope.
As many misgivings as I have about ALA I always come up against the fact that he worked as a CHEMIST. I think we can all agree that the Zodiac was grandiose enough to believe that people would still be studying these crimes decades later and if you worked as a chemist, you would understand that bodily fluids could hold all kinds of markers- and of course blood types in the secreting population could have been gleaned from saliva. Even tho they hadn’t arrived at DNA profiling yet, there were major advances happening in chemistry and the sciences in general (he majored in biology as well) and one could easily extrapolate that those advances might nail you in your lifetime. Unless there is a DNA sample (even a partial) that matches another DNA sample, I wouldn’t think we could give any weight to the DNA ruling out anyone.
In fact, the physical evidence- fingerprints, the Stine fingerprint and the "Exorcist" palm prints- can we really say (especially in terms of the letter) that that is Z’s print? The cab especially has always bugged the hell out of me. Has any print emerged from these and other supposed print sets that was singular? One would think that (despite the fact that apparently the print on the phone after one of the murders was ruined in the lifting process) some prints could have been gotten from the phone booth or the cab, the letters, etc., and all compared in a pile. Apparently there are lots more prints that have been picked up from stuff, but If there was no commonality among them, i.e., one singular matching print found on say, Stine’s cab and the phone booth and one of the letters, then how can the fingerprints be used to rule out anyone either?
Handwriting being something like profiling, and not an exact science, there goes that in terms of using it to positively identify a suspect or ruling them out.
So, in short, am I the only one depressed by the possibility that perhaps none of the physical evidence is worth much, if that singular matching print or DNA sample has not been isolated?
To answer your last question first: No, you’re not the only one…and no, as far as I know we have no reason to believe that any of the prints match (any other print), which means that we can’t know for sure if any single print actually belongs to Z. The way in which the police have used handwriting to eliminate suspects over the years also clearly indicates that they do not possess prints they are very confident about.
DNA? I’m inclined to think the same applies there. They have something – but it seems partial and it doesn’t seem like they have been able to match anything to…anything. If a suspect comes along whose prints and DNA match any latent and/or sample – then presto. But what they have can’t rule anyone out. That’s my understanding of it, at least. There are many, many theories and much speculation about this, though.
That kills me. Really. It is quite difficult to keep up with the latest DNA cliffhangers in this case. I don’t know how many times I have read of impending comparisons or FBI test results that remain unrevealed, and the confidence in the evidence just falls apart under close scrutiny. Honestly, if I were a millionaire I would pay to have every envelope, letter, and stamp tested for DNA and if you found ONE common profile, just one pair among 47 specimens, then I would say THAT is either the guy or a very close associate of the guy. You would be able to unequivocally state "we got him". Or you could say, NOT (suspect’s name). I think the misplaced confidence in the physical evidence in this case could be the achilles heel. The more I find out, the grimmer it seems.
😥 That kills me. Really. It is quite difficult to keep up with the latest DNA cliffhangers in this case. I don’t know how many times I have read of impending comparisons or FBI test results that remain unrevealed, and the confidence in the evidence just falls apart under close scrutiny. Honestly, if I were a millionaire I would pay to have every envelope, letter, and stamp tested for DNA and if you found ONE common profile, just one pair among 47 specimens, then I would say THAT is either the guy or a very close associate of the guy. You would be able to unequivocally state "we got him". Or you could say, NOT (suspect’s name). I think the misplaced confidence in the physical evidence in this case could be the achilles heel. The more I find out, the grimmer it seems.
Yes – it does look somewhat grim.
But the thing is – and therein lies some hope, I think – that this has been a cold case (both formally in some instances and practically in others) for a long time. The efforts made to make the most of the available physical evidence, using state of the art methods, may be less than impressive all things said and done.
Would a unified effort (to put it bluntly – leave the whole thing, the evidence of all jurisdictions, to the FBI in one shape or another) to analyze the physical evidence thoroughly (including evidence which may never have been considered in this context )…would such an effort possibly yield results? Yes, I think it may. There was an interview with a retired SFPD cop a few years ago – can’t remember the details now, but he was on the Z case before he retired, after it had become a cold case in reality, if not formally.
This guy absolutely slaughtered the SFPD top brass and declared that if they had been half interested in solving the case something could have been achieved – not least in terms of re-examining physical evidence using modern methods.
So maybe. It costs money, though – that’s always the problem. I have no doubt that his criticism of his superiors was justified – but it’s clear enough that a police department in a major city can’t prioritize something like the Z case over more immediate and pressing concerns.
Lots of DNA discussion throughout these threads – search "DNA" and you will find a lot of information.
I’m certain we are not privy to all information and DNA testing will advance. I don’t think all hope is lost. When you consider what we didn’t even know 20 years ago…who knows what is to come.
“…they may be dealing with one or more ersatz Zodiacs–other psychotics eager to get into the act, or perhaps even other murderers eager to lay their crimes at the real Zodiac’s doorstep.“ L.A. Times, 1969
PS The guy I mentioned above would be the late Michael Maloney. Just to be clear.
Yes, I really feel that the criticism of the police in this case is misplaced. Even tho I am an anti-authority type by nature, detectives are really my heroes. These guys wade in. They have to use their brains. They aren’t billy-clubbing pot smokers on the street, they’re hunting down the truly bad dudes. They were tested with this case and many continue to be haunted. I think its simply a matter of money and resources and that is why I think that the amateur community is so important. We have the time and some of us have the money.
It does seem that this DNA testing is a bit of a dawning of a new era. This really could, if a common profile could be found, solve the case. That’s why the exclusion of any suspect right now is meaningless til that common profile emerges.
Maybe with SF’s rents going sky-high, the tax base will open up some funds to kick this one into overdrive.
If Zodiac is still alive, he has to be living in fear every single day. I mean, a lot of these guys think they got away with it only to be caught years and years later. A knock at is front door, showing up at his work place, driving to 7-11 for his morning coffee….every single day, worry.
“…they may be dealing with one or more ersatz Zodiacs–other psychotics eager to get into the act, or perhaps even other murderers eager to lay their crimes at the real Zodiac’s doorstep.“ L.A. Times, 1969
If he were a sociopath it probably doesn’t bother him one whit. Having dealt with some monsters of that variety in my own life I have made a sort of amateur study of them. But he is a little too gleeful, I think, to qualify. He enjoyed his taunting, and most sociopaths just go about their horrible business as if they were the natural center of the world and it doesn’t even occur to them that there is anything wrong with this.
I HOPE that mother is worried.
For what it’s worth, here’s a post from the predecessor of this board. The poster is one "James Dean" or "JDean", a former Vallejo cop who worked the Z case in the 70s and who later interviewed the teen witnesses in the Stine case*. From what I can gather he was a serious guy and a reliable source:
I should qualify the "non viable" prints remark. First, the cab prints have never been shown to my knowledge, to be from anyone other than a cab customer, or other innocent print. The story of bloody prints I believe refers to bloody prints probably left by Z, on or about the drivers door, they may be bloody, but they do not have any ridge pattern for forensic use. I base this on information from a Forensic worker familiar with the case, and a pecular lack of SFPD trying to eliminate anyone based on prints, for at at least 15 years. I also met with DOJ about two years ago and they said they had no prints, but they did have DNA. They may have DNA, but I don’t believe it is viable. If you want a really technical discussion about DNA, I can refer you to a great source who would love to explain it in relation to this case.
* This was done much later, in the early 2000s or thereabouts. I think Mike Rodelli worked with this guy – apologies if that is incorrect, Mike.
Thanks for that Norse. I was reading in the appendices of "Unmasked" and it goes through the DNA samples and this is something I haven’t really heard people talk about- there was NO DNA found on the envelope flaps of the first three letters. NO DNA. Not a partial, nothing.
And as I suspected the prints don’t seem to be viable either.
Another thing mentioned by JDean, which I find quite interesting, is the "bloody prints" business. Pelissetti says somewhere (one of the later interviews, possibly the one he did for the Fincher movie) that he could see "bloody prints" on the cab’s exterior when he approached it. Now, these prints must have been highly visible, so to speak. They were clearly not the latents with blood traces (or whatever the exact phrase is) mentioned elsewhere. Could they be the same "prints" JDean mentions? That is, not identifiable fingerprints as much as "marks" made in blood – by someone who wore gloves, say? Or even some sort of "guard" such as airplane cement or whatnot? Fake clews – actually. Maybe the bastard wasn’t lying about that one after all.
Honestly I am getting to the point where it seems that all the physical evidence is questionable in some way. People treat the DNA like the Zodiac was a rapist and it came out of the body of one of the victims. People are used to thinking, from watching lots crime tv, that DNA is some incontrovertible thing. In cases like the aforementioned, absolutely. In this case, possibly unlikely.
Honestly I am getting to the point where it seems that all the physical evidence is questionable in some way. People treat the DNA like the Zodiac was a rapist and it came out of the body of one of the victims. People are used to thinking, from watching lots crime tv, that DNA is some incontrovertible thing. In cases like the aforementioned, absolutely. In this case, possibly unlikely.
I’ll tell ya, shows like "Forensic Files" truly gives one hope—just stay away from the fake criminal investigation shows!
“…they may be dealing with one or more ersatz Zodiacs–other psychotics eager to get into the act, or perhaps even other murderers eager to lay their crimes at the real Zodiac’s doorstep.“ L.A. Times, 1969
Honestly I am getting to the point where it seems that all the physical evidence is questionable in some way. People treat the DNA like the Zodiac was a rapist and it came out of the body of one of the victims. People are used to thinking, from watching lots crime tv, that DNA is some incontrovertible thing. In cases like the aforementioned, absolutely. In this case, possibly unlikely.
I’ll tell ya, shows like "Forensic Files" truly gives one hope—just stay away from the fake criminal investigation shows!
I watched some "Forensics Files" last night! Great show. I can’t STAND the "CSI" hoohah. Everyone cuts a stunning figure in their long trench coats and their mirrored high tech offices. I’ll take real detectives with their terrible military haircuts than Hollywood actors any day. With the exception of Mark Ruffalo. 
Its a terrible thing to think but this whole thing would be imminently prosecutable if Z had been a sex killer. He got his jollies from far off. And I guess that is the secret to remaining uncatchable.
