Morf source at VPD said on 3/26/2019 "My Zodiac Police source, "Pump the brakes on the Zodiac DNA rumors" that there are no new developments". Do you think the VPD are lying? Maybe you do.

That’s exactly what I was thinking, but will respect whatever is being said and done.

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. We’re talking 18 months. Dozens of cold cases have been solved nationwide under the same method since DeAngelo.

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.

But without going back through that episode, which his piece would have been in December, didn’t he say, "as far as he knows or has been reported to him up to that point?"

Right, and he said his information was not recent.

But since last May, that’s the only credible update we’ve received. Nothing before or since.

Is there an attorney on here?
Does letting a non-police related person have access to evidence potentially damage that evidence being used to solve a case? Especially if the person let in has a criminal record?

Really? The evidence is being used to solve the case?

Is there an attorney on here?
Does letting a non-police related person have access to evidence potentially damage that evidence being used to solve a case? Especially if the person let in has a criminal record?

Take that crap back to reddit.

Is there an attorney on here?
Does letting a non-police related person have access to evidence potentially damage that evidence being used to solve a case? Especially if the person let in has a criminal record?

Take that crap back to reddit.

Agreed.

And if LE can consult with Tom, who likely knows more about the case than they do — given that current LE has inherited it, and it has been low priority — what’s there to lose?

Seriously – what leads has LE produced in 50 years?

Seriously – what leads has LE produced in 50 years?

Well, early on a lot, but none that amounted to anything. I believe most consider it a cold case and don’t bother much looking into it. Poyser said he works it on his own time. I guess they are hoping DNA will finally solve it. But as I said earlier in this thread, if this latest effort by Vallejo fails, or has failed, they all should consider releasing all the info they have and let the masses dig through it.

Is there an attorney on here?
Does letting a non-police related person have access to evidence potentially damage that evidence being used to solve a case? Especially if the person let in has a criminal record?

I’d absolutely destroy that evidence if it were introduced against MY clients. HOWEVER, it is important to remember: prosecution may not be the ultimate goal. If the Zodiac is dead, then there is no case against him. Further, if he’s alive, the case will be made by examining other evidence in addition to that which was perused by a civilian.

I’d absolutely destroy that evidence if it were introduced against MY clients.

quack quack quack

I’d absolutely destroy that evidence if it were introduced against MY clients.

quack quack quack

Tom, please. You know who I really am. You obviously didn’t google me. Just because I live hundreds of miles from you doesn’t mean I cease to exist. It’s a fact: that evidence would be worthless in the face of a defense offered by me or most any competent, experienced criminal defense lawyer. However, if you would read the remainder of that post you’d see that I was coming to your defense (although merely obliquely–I was texting and driving so I didn’t give you the full-throated defense you apparently felt you deserved).

To spell it out more plainly: THAT evidence on its own is worthless to a criminal prosecution. However, law enforcement officials probably did a good thing by letting you see the evidence. In fact, it would be even better if they’d let the rest of us see it. It is a good thing because the Zodiac is most probably dead. However, even if he is not dead, your handling of the evidence does not scuttle the entire investigation/prosecution. This is because they will develop further evidence once they identify the correct person. That other evidence will be sufficient to convict. It is analogous to the "inevitable discovery" doctrine in search and seizure law. The products of an unlawful search may be inadmissible due to the originally-proferred reason for that sesrch; however, if the evidence were also seized pursuant to another lawful exigency, then that evidence is admissible nonetheless.

So, before you go quacking, try to figure out if somebody is calling you a duck or a goose first. I’m on your side. I think it is a net positive that you were allowed in to review the evidence. But that doesn’t change the fact that I would be able to render that evidence meaningless in a courtroom setting. I was just answering the question that was cast in the direction of my profession.

I’m one of the many who you keep banning on your reddit sub for simply disagreeing with you.

Naah. If you were banned, it was because you are a foul-mouthed piece of ignorant Internet garbage, just like you are here.

You of all people saying this to someone cracks me up.

Tom, please. You know who I really am.

I have no idea who you are, why would I?

I’m one of the many who you keep banning on your reddit sub for simply disagreeing with you.

Naah. If you were banned, it was because you are a foul-mouthed piece of ignorant Internet garbage, just like you are here.

You of all people saying this to someone cracks me up.

I have a foul mouth? Huh.

Is there an attorney on here?
Does letting a non-police related person have access to evidence potentially damage that evidence being used to solve a case? Especially if the person let in has a criminal record?

I’d absolutely destroy that evidence if it were introduced against MY clients. HOWEVER, it is important to remember: prosecution may not be the ultimate goal. If the Zodiac is dead, then there is no case against him. Further, if he’s alive, the case will be made by examining other evidence in addition to that which was perused by a civilian.

That’s so stupid it hurts.