<If they got DNA I’m pretty sure they are already trying to match it.>

We’re all guessing. If they did find DNA, the next step is to sequence a profile, which isn’t a slam dunk.

Until proven otherwise, I’m taking Paul Holes at his word in the Monster Podcast, where he implied the VPD lab hadn’t had any success pulling DNA — and he didn’t seem optimistic that would change.

Holes was referring to the attempts from a decade ago or more.

No.

Holes was specifically discussing the current materials being tested, when he said that according to his information, they hadn’t recovered DNA yet.

He also discusses the earlier attempts you’re referring to, but in a different segment.

Well, Holes is not in the current loop.

Outside of the lab, only two individuals within VPD know what is going on and at least one of them didn’t even know who Paul Holes was as of last Monday.

Surely there’s isn’t that much crime in California that the testing takes this long.

40 million people in California. That’s larger than many countries, so yeah, there’s quite a list. I know Poyser said they went the cheaper route in not using expedited testing. I have no idea how long that means, but they probably kept getting bumped down the list. This lab they used is not doing all the testing for the state of California, I assume, so it does seem they should have completed the testing by now.

That part’s a bunch of crap.

What part?

40 million people in California?

That Vallejo said they went the cheaper route and didn’t expedite?

Where I said it seems they should have completed the testing by now?

What’s crap?

That they keep getting bumped down the list.

Well, Holes is not in the current loop.

Outside of the lab, only two individuals within VPD know what is going on and at least one of them didn’t even know who Paul Holes was as of last Monday.

Agreed, Holes likely isn’t in the current inside loop — that said, I’ll take his information over yours Tom, until proven otherwise.

(And scary that your guy doesn’t know who Paul Holes is. It would seem to be highly irresponsible to be working the case, and not know anything about how GSK was solved.)

(And scary that your guy doesn’t know who Paul Holes is. It would seem to be highly irresponsible to be working the case, and not know anything about how GSK was solved.)

I hope that was some kind of April Fools joke. One can understand exactly how the GSK case was solved without knowing who Paul Holes is.

(And scary that your guy doesn’t know who Paul Holes is. It would seem to be highly irresponsible to be working the case, and not know anything about how GSK was solved.)

I hope that was some kind of April Fools joke. One can understand exactly how the GSK case was solved without knowing who Paul Holes is.

Tom, give me a break.

Tom, give me a break.

Are you a fanboy of his or something? Or do you really believe detectives go home after working 72 hour shifts, and watch the ID Channel?

Seriously…is your position that one can’t understand how GSK was solved without knowing the name "Paul Holes?" Do you not realize that 99.9% of news watchers don’t study true crime?

Anyone currently working the Zodiac case would need to educate themself on the GSK solve.

If they educated themselves on the GSK solve, they would know who Paul Holes is.

I don’t know what else to tell you . . .

You’ve been brainwashed by podcasts, IMHO. Are you wearing a "Hot for Holes" T-shirt?

You’ve been brainwashed by podcasts, IMHO. Are you wearing a "Hot for Holes" T-shirt?

No.

You’ve been brainwashed by podcasts, IMHO. Are you wearing a "Hot for Holes" T-shirt?

No.

Well, I am.

I’m amused by the mindset of some who feel they are entitled to be given information.

The issue is not that Tom has given information but rather he hasn’t freely given the entitled more .

I’m amused by the mindset of some who feel they are entitled to be given information.

The issue is not that Tom has given information but rather he hasn’t freely given the entitled more .

Excuse me?

I was hoping to part friends by making myself the joke.