Hi Druzer,

No, that is not correct. You have to understand how they tested the stamps. With regard to the Alan Keel DNA chart of 2000, the way he told me he tested the stamps is that he cut out a little piece of stamp and immersed the whole thing–both the outside of stamp AND attached envelope–in the extracting fluid. That means that if there were small traces of saliva containing some contaminant cells like the ones Holt ended up testing on the OUTSIDE of the stamp, they would register. Let’s face it, it was Keel himself suggested that the stamps and flaps may have been sealed with tap water because on a stamp that has been licked you would find a boatload of both saliva and cells. That is what you find on the 1974 and 1978 letters. You do not see that with the Zodiac letters thus you resort to obtaining DNA from a place you should not obtain it–the front of the stamp.

This is not rocket science. It is just that people are so obsessed with DNA having to solve this case instead of a profile from a top profiler and a person who fits that profile and who can be tied into the inner behavioral workings and facts of the case that they get on the floor and throw a tantrum demanding DNA out of evidence that scientific testing has shown thus far is very unlikely to yield it. Gosh, how did they ever solve a case a hundred years ago without DNA? But they did solve them by good old detective work. DNA is the illusionary crutch of the Zodiac case. It is the reason the police sit back and do nothing because they are waiting for DNA to leach out of something. Like former SF City Attorney Tim Armistead told me years ago, SFPD wants to solve the case without leaving the Hall of Justice.

Mike

Hi Druzer,

No, that is not correct. You have to understand how they tested the stamps. With regard to the Alan Keel DNA chart of 2000, the way he told me he tested the stamps is that he cut out a little piece of stamp and immersed the whole thing–both the outside of stamp AND attached envelope–in the extracting fluid. That means that if there were small traces of saliva containing some contaminant cells like the ones Holt ended up testing on the OUTSIDE of the stamp, they would register. Let’s face it, it was Keel himself suggested that the stamps and flaps may have been sealed with tap water because on a stamp that has been licked you would find a boatload of both saliva and cells. That is what you find on the 1974 and 1978 letters. You do not see that with the Zodiac letters thus you resort to obtaining DNA from a place you should not obtain it–the front of the stamp.

This is not rocket science. It is just that people are so obsessed with DNA having to solve this case instead of a profile from a top profiler and a person who fits that profile and who can be tied into the inner behavioral workings and facts of the case that they get on the floor and throw a tantrum demanding DNA out of evidence that scientific testing has shown thus far is very unlikely to yield it. Gosh, how did they ever solve a case a hundred years ago without DNA? But they did solve them by good old detective work. DNA is the illusionary crutch of the Zodiac case. It is the reason the police sit back and do nothing because they are waiting for DNA to leach out of something. Like former SF City Attorney Tim Armistead told me years ago, SFPD wants to solve the case without leaving the Hall of Justice.

Mike

The only 1974 letter you must be referring to is the Exorcist letter as it is the only one that reads "cells found". But there are other Zodiac letter that read "cells found" and refer to the envelope. We also don’t have any results from the three original letters. Unless you are referring to different test results.

With all due respect as well, your statement, "It is just that people are so obsessed with DNA having to solve this case instead of a profile from a top profiler and a person who fits that profile and who can be tied into the inner behavioral workings and facts of the case that they get on the floor and throw a tantrum demanding DNA out of evidence that scientific testing has shown thus far is very unlikely to yield it." sounds like you are referencing your POI and it comes across like you think they should just say "case closed" because you have a profiler that likes your guy. I think this case is FAR from being considered solved by that conclusion alone.

Excellent Mike. I mean it’s atrocious but I now have a better grasp on your reasoning. They found DNA but not enough to stick a stamp or seal an envelope and the test method did not verify that the discovered traces of DNA even came from the sealant, which could have been tap water. There should have been an abundance of DNA if saliva was used, as they discovered with the 74 and 78 letters. Thanks for taking the time here.

In an AP story today the Vallejo mayor says they’ve been submitting samples to a lab every couple of years, with the hope that advances in testing technology will finally yield a profile.

That implies they’ve been shut out multiple times.

Probably not as exciting a development as it seemed yesterday, when it felt like it was tied into the GSK momentum.

Hi,

Except that this profiler has a very good track record when he names a suspect in a case. He is not just "some profiler." And my case is about much more than Richard Walter endorsing it. That is the cherry on top. Read my book….

The envelopes being sent have been tested before. Doesn’t Poyser say they are being "retested?" This whole issue is not a difficult. If this were just an exercise in a college forensics class that said, "Test the letters for saliva and cells and tell us which ones were licked and which ones were not licked," it would be an easy A. You test the Zodiac letters and conclude based on saliva testing that they were not licked and you test the 1974 and 1978 letters and say that there is such an abundance of saliva and cells (and DNA) that they were obviously licked. But because it is the Zodiac case nobody wants to accept the science. The science is what it is.

Does everyone here understand here that SFPD’s lab itself segregates the "true" Zodiac letters from the forgeries by an internal assessment that the "true" letters were not licked and the "forgeries" were licked? It’s laughable that we keep having this argument. They know what is going on. Why do you think we have 2002 DNA from the outside of a stamp? They couldn’t find any where it should have been! A stamp can’t be half-licked. It was either licked or it wasn’t and if it was it would be teeming with DNA that is READILY extracted and analyzed like the 1978 and 1974 forgeries. This is not difficult. What more proof do you need? That was as per Alan Keel in my conversation with him in 2007. It is in my DNA chapter.

Mike

Very well stated Mike.

This is probably a dumb question, but is it possible with current techniques that they can obtain touch-DNA from the outsides of the envelopes and/or the letter?

Even if those surfaces are cross-contaminated and have been handled by multiple people – is it conceivable they can achieve multiple profiles and run them all through GED Match?

Overall, not terribly encouraging. All the past issues related to contamination and deterioration still limit potential results. From what I know of the potential Z DNA samples, they are much more useful for ruling out than for matching. And even if they rule out that a particular individual was in contact with any of the letters, they do not rule out that the individual was in fact Z.

There are authentic zodiac letters that say cells found just like one of the alleged forgeries from 1974. The results appear to be the same–cell wise.

It certainly doesn’t hurt to try. There needs to be something more than theories.

Definitely worth trying. Call me glass half empty.

Agreed Tahoe, throw the kitchen sink at it. Nothing to lose but a few bucks.

(And if I interpreted a post correctly, Vallejo is apparently opting for the ‘budget’ results, which take longer.)

Is it possible they could detect touch-DNA from the underside of the stamp or envelope flap when he placed the stamp on
the envelope ? (unless he placed the stamp on the envelope with tweezers or surgical gloves)

Hi,

Monarch, that is the $64,000 question. Zodiac seemed to wear gloves when he wrote the letters. (Let’s leave the Exorcist letter out of this discussion for the time being because there is one 1974 forgery and beginning in 1978 the Exorcist letter was cited as a likely culprit for being the forgery.) The question is if he also used gloves when applying his stamps with, let’s say for the sake of explaining the nearly absent saliva, tap water. But touch DNA just requires more cycles of PCR. They would definitely need to use the right extraction technique, like swabbing the backs of the stamps and excluding the front, but something tells me that if it were just a matter of it being touch DNA they would have attempted that technique a long time ago, since it is not "new" in the sense of being cutting edge and recently introduced. (see below)

Don’t forget that in the 2002 ABC show, they found that reddish brown hair BEHIND a stamp, so it is possible that Holt even tried peeling back and swabbing just the glue side of the stamp for cells and DNA and still could not find any. As to whether she used something resembling touch DNA is unknown. But with touch DNA and the more sensitive techniques that have come about since 1997 (see below), there is the caveat that the fewer cells you are analyzing from potentially contaminated evidence the more careful you have to be about contamination of the DNA sample. They’d need matching DNA from multiple envelopes to begin to have confidence that it from the letter writer.

See this quote from a scientific article:

In 1997 it was reported that DNA profiles could be generated from touched objects [51].

So the concept of touch DNA was around prior to 2002.

Mike

Very welcome news…now if only riverside gets its act together

Hi,

Monarch, that is the $64,000 question. Zodiac seemed to wear gloves when he wrote the letters. (Let’s leave the Exorcist letter out of this discussion for the time being because there is one 1974 forgery and beginning in 1978 the Exorcist letter was cited as a likely culprit for being the forgery.) The question is if he also used gloves when applying his stamps with, let’s say for the sake of explaining the nearly absent saliva, tap water. But touch DNA just requires more cycles of PCR. They would definitely need to use the right extraction technique, like swabbing the backs of the stamps and excluding the front, but something tells me that if it were just a matter of it being touch DNA they would have attempted that technique a long time ago, since it is not "new" in the sense of being cutting edge and recently introduced. (see below)

Don’t forget that in the 2002 ABC show, they found that reddish brown hair BEHIND a stamp, so it is possible that Holt even tried peeling back and swabbing just the glue side of the stamp for cells and DNA and still could not find any. As to whether she used something resembling touch DNA is unknown. But with touch DNA and the more sensitive techniques that have come about since 1997 (see below), there is the caveat that the fewer cells you are analyzing from potentially contaminated evidence the more careful you have to be about contamination of the DNA sample. They’d need matching DNA from multiple envelopes to begin to have confidence that it from the letter writer.

See this quote from a scientific article:

In 1997 it was reported that DNA profiles could be generated from touched objects [51].

So the concept of touch DNA was around prior to 2002.

Mike

Interesting they found the reddish brown hair behind the stamp, makes me wonder if they could test it for mtDNA and compare
it to the mtDNA they have from The CJB crime scene.

Also Tahoe has reported that RPD has developed a new DNA result from CJB’s pants AND the wristwatch found at the crime scene
so I wonder if they could test the stamps from the Riverside letters for DNA and compare the results with the new DNA profile.

If it were a match that would increase the likelihood that Zodiac killed Cheri Jo.

Hi Monarch,

Well, I’ve been rabid about that little hair since I first saw it in 2002, since KQ also had reddish brown hair. Unfortunately, it is such a small piece that even 15 years later they cannot analyze it for mt-DNA. They’d be running a huge risk if they sample it and don’t come up with anything. It still has to wait for some possible future advancement in the sensitivity of the technology.

Mike