Guess it doesn’t belong here, but just today, we had another proof that DNA is going to solve many many cold cases!
https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr … 94901.html

Short summary: In August of 1987, the body of a little girl was found on the side of Highway 10, in France. The only elements that Police had were that she seemed to be of North-african descent, and her body had burn and bite marks, bruises, and it looked like she was beaten on a regular basis. Forensics determined that she was 5 y-o at most. Her description did not correspond to any missing kid at the time. Investigators had nowhere to go, no actual leads. Poor little girl was nicknamed "La petite martyre de l’A10" (The little martyr of H-10), and the case remained at a standstill for over 30 years.
But when DNA became a crucial method to find culprits in criminal cases, investigators began to systematically compare the little girl’s DNA profile to that of each new add in the French criminal DNA records.
Then, last year, a man was arrested after an altercation in a shop and his DNA was collected. A few days ago, he was found to be a direct relative to the Little Martyr; his brother, actually. His parents were then arrested and questioned by the Gendarmerie. The young girl’s name was Inass Touloub, she was born in Morocco, she was 4. Her parents had 7 children in total.
Unsurprisingly, each parent said the death of their daughter was the other one’s fault, the father saying he came home from work one night to find the dead body of Inass, adding that his wife was a very violent person, who beat their kids, and that he himself was afraid of her. As for the mother, she barely remembers anything and even seems to believe her daughter is still alive. Actually, she wasn’t the one who dealt with the body. The father was supposed to drive to Morocco for the holidays with 2 of his daughters and one of his boys, along with Inass. He did so, with Inass’s body envelopped in a cloth, which he disposed of along the way on the roadside that night.

Again, sorry because I know this is off topic, but I just wanted to underline once again the importance of DNA in the resolution of cold criminal cases today, which is only grow bigger and bigger. Also, I wanted to salute the memory of poor little Inass.

Hi,

I’m trying to understand all this talk about the hair. Is the technique called direct PCR? When I think of a hair without a root, I think only of mt-DNA but everyone here is talking about a full or partial profile to be compared in genealogy databases. So are you expecting to get nuclear DNA from some cells that might be clinging to the surface of this hair? How do you get nuclear DNA from a rootless hair? They don’t have any mt-DNA databases, right?

Mike

Hi,
I’m trying to understand all this talk about the hair. Is the technique called direct PCR? When I think of a hair without a root, I think only of mt-DNA but everyone here is talking about a full or partial profile to be compared in genealogy databases. So are you expecting to get nuclear DNA from some cells that might be clinging to the surface of this hair? How do you get nuclear DNA from a rootless hair? They don’t have any mt-DNA databases, right?
Mike

The paper I linked earlier says the nuclear typing assay "InnoTyper 21" produced viable nuclear DNA profiles from 40% of the rootless hair samples they tested with.

Hi,

OK. Now I can see what you are getting at. Thanks.

Mike

Not sure that implied ‘viable DNA profiles’. I read it to say ‘interpretable DNA’. Pretty sure it’s a jump from ‘interpretable’ to a sufficient profile that can be entered into a database for comparison. Also three of the authors of that study are employed by the company that makes the test.

Good answer about the glue, but I have a question………

How do we know for sure that the killer, himself licked the envelopes? He could have used on of those water devices, or
had the envelopes licked by someone else……just a thought!

trainmaster

Copied a post by John B. Averitt, From Tom V’s Forum:

12:35 PM – Nov 17, 2018 #24

Hello All,
There are many comments and questions since I wrote last here so I will attempt to address the ones I can. First the touch DNA issue. Please read the old posts on what we are attempting to collect DNA from. This is clothes line, the old type. It was old 3/8 inch rope at Berryessa and not here. The murder suspect wore gloves but likely pre-cut the lengths of the clothes lines before he got to the scene. The extra pieces of clothes line were also at the scene. I was educated on touch DNA by Bode Labs. I think they are one of the best. My instructor has written many articles. One of her best is noted here. She worked for Bode Labs back in 2011.

Touch DNA: Forensic Collection and Application to Investigations. Article by Angela L. Williamson, PhD Bode Technology, Lorton, Virginia, USA

This article was written in 2011. The collection depends on the object the detective is taking the sample from. In 2014 I presented a paper to the International Society of Identification. These people are DNA experts. I presented the Z case with focus on Berryessa and Santa Barbara. They agreed that the vacuum method should be used on the Berryessa rope (as you saw in the History Channel on the Riverside pants) and the swab method should be used on the solid clothes line to gather Touch DNA. Now we only need between five and ten cells to gather a sample. This is the technique to gather cells by the swab technique I was taught for solid material.

Be sure to wear appropriate personal protective equipment.
If using a dry swab, extract distilled water from vial using sterile pipette and apply one drop to the side of the tip. Do not use more than one drop, and do not dip the swab into the water.
If using a self-saturating foam-tipped swab, open and remove swab holding foam tip facing down. Then squeeze handle until it pops, releasing medium into tip.
Apply tip to sample area and rub using moderate pressure while rotating the swab to ensure the entire swab surface has made contact with the object.
To avoid compromising the sample by redepositing specimen, do not rotate more than once.
If using dry swab, allow to air dry then place tip in dry transport tube or vial.
If using self-saturating foam-tipped swab, gently peel foam tip away from handle and place in sterile container for transport.
Label the tube or envelope with identifying information.
Use evidence tape to seal outer packaging. Initial and date for chain of custody verification.
Store swab at room temperature or transfer to freezer until testing.
Remember if we collect Touch DNA from Santa Barbara, we only need to see if any DNA matches the DNA at Berryessa or other samples that are attributed to Z. Any other samples from detectives are not significant.

As to what evidence was common between the Berryessa and Santa Barbara, that has never been released. The sheriff noted there was such evidence at the time of the joint press conference back in 1974. I do know that evidence. That is all I can say.

jbaveritt

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/zodiack … 5-s10.html

Recently someone asked Tom if he was still sure that the same person committed the Lake Berryessa attack and the Domingos/Edwards murders. He answered that he was 100% sure. Tom has never steered me wrong when he has inside information, so I believe it.

With that being the case, it makes me re-think a few things. If Z is responsible for Domingos/Edwards, a requirement for valid suspects is that it must be possible to place them in Santa Barbara County on June 4, 1963.

The site of the Domingo/Edwards murder was an unmarked spot in Santa Barbara, known mostly to locals, similar to the lovers’ lanes at LHR and BRS in Vallejo and Benicia. Santa Barbara and Vallejo are 300 miles apart.

Did Z have a connection to both places? For example, maybe he grew up in the Santa Barbara area and later moved to the the Bay area. Or was he just good at sniffing out isolated local spots where couples went? If it’s the latter, that weakens the case for suspects like Arthur Leigh Allen who were local to the first two attacks.

If he didn’t have a connection to both, that means he roamed over large areas. He might not have a local connection to any of the crimes. He could be a Ted Bundy, committing crimes all over the map.

Wouldn’t have to be a local. Over a cup of coffee at a truck stop you could strike up a friendly conversation, and find out where the "Lovers’ Lanes" were.

Wouldn’t have to be a local. Over a cup of coffee at a truck stop you could strike up a friendly conversation, and find out where the "Lovers’ Lanes" were.

It doesn’t have to be a local, but it’s certainly a strong possibility. And by local I should say someone with a local connection, not necessarily someone who grew up there or even lived there. Gaik had a connection to the Vallejo Times. Kjell Qvale had a connection in a route he travelled.

I just realized there’s another huge implication of Domingos/Edwards being a Z crime. It would skew Zodiac’s age older. There were five and a half years between Domingos/Edwards in June, 1963 and and Faraday/Jensen in December, 1968. So if you thought Z was (for example) 25 in 1968, you may want to adjust that estimate upwards.

High school yearbooks

You know what else that would mean? It would mean that looking at high school yearbooks is less likely to be helpful than one might have previously thought. Assume for the sake of argument that Z was 18 in 1963. Cherri Jo Bates was 18 when she was murdered in 1966; Z would have been 21, meaning he would have been out of high school for somewhere between 2 and 4 years. Assuming Z was 18 in 1963, Z would have to be a junior or senior when Bates was a freshman in order for them to be in the same yearbook, and that assumes a very young Z. If he was a couple of years older they wouldn’t have gone to high school together.

Faraday/Jensen were killed December of 1968. If Z was 18 in 1963 he would have been 23 in 1968. He won’t be in their high school yearbook and he won’t be someone they knew in high school.

Our hypothetical Z would have been 24 when he murdered Darlene Ferrin in July 1969. She was 22, so the possibility of her and Z being high school age at the same time is greater than for the previous victims, but again it requires a very young Z.

This is very interesting, I didn’t know that Tom V. was 100% certain Z killed Domingos/Edwards, WOW!
I had always thought the chances of Z killing D&E were pretty slim.

Gee, I just would love to know what that evidence is that connects the Edwards & Domingos killing to Zodiac. If they say it’s 100% certain, it has to be something concrete and absolutely obvious. Not just a similarity of MO between that and Zodiac crimes or such. There must have been a symbol, a name or a message placed at the crime scene, or a letter to the LE, or somewhere, soon afterwards.

If we assume that Zodiac wrote the Bates letter, maybe he sent it (and majority of the known Zodiac letters) to a newspaper because he had previous experience of not getting the publicity he desires if he mails the police.

Gee, I just would love to know what that evidence is that connects the Edwards & Domingos killing to Zodiac. If they say it’s 100% certain, it has to be something concrete and absolutely obvious. Not just a similarity of MO between that and Zodiac crimes or such. There must have been a symbol, a name or a message placed at the crime scene, or a letter to the LE, or somewhere, soon afterwards.

If we assume that Zodiac wrote the Bates letter, maybe he sent it (and majority of the known Zodiac letters) to a newspaper because he had previous experience of not getting the publicity he desires if he mails the police.

Yes, and that might explain why there were three recipients – he figured one of the three would make it public.

People always say Z didn’t send a letter after LB, but it’s safer to say that Z didn’t send a letter as far as we know. Tom says that there are things left at crime scenes and things sent in that haven’t been released to the public and that items left at LB and PH establish that they were definite Z crimes.

Tom and I are good friends of Bill Baker who worked that case in Santa Barbara. Bill is a firm believer that his case was the work of the Zodiac. Zodiac made sure he didn’t make the same mistakes at Lake Berryessa, that he made in the Santa Barbara case.

As far as Zodiac living there in order to know that beach area, all he needed to see was the car parked there, like he did at Lake B. He would then check to see if it was a lone couple or not and then strike!

We both trust what Bill had to say. There were somethings he could not share with us, because it is still a open case and we understand that.