<If this effort by Vallejo doesn’t work it might be time for all the jurisdictions to make all their files public and hope something comes from that in a Hail Mary move.>
The Hail Mary is a great way to put it!
Also, let’s face it, aren’t there roughly 20 confirmed Zodiac envelopes? Right now we’re testing two – why not at least half of them?
Wondering if research would not be done/needed if it relatives were known.
Example: dna produces profile of someone who is deceased. That person is somehow identified but further confirmation (for some reason) may be needed. If the closest next-of-kin were known (male first cousin), wouldn’t it be possible to just go to that person directly for whatever information (saving time time and expense of research)?
Sorry for what is probably a stupid question but just wondering if perhaps such a situation could apply here and be what is going on and perhaps explain some of the murkiness and what seems to be an inordinate delay in giving out something as simple as a progress report!!!
Also, let’s face it, aren’t there roughly 20 confirmed Zodiac envelopes? Right now we’re testing two – why not at least half of them?
Not sure the exact number but yeah, seems more testing could be done. Maybe even on the swatches of Stine’s shirt for touch DNA. We don’t know that other testing is or is not going on however.
Also, let’s face it, aren’t there roughly 20 confirmed Zodiac envelopes? Right now we’re testing two – why not at least half of them?
One reason could be that if this fails, there might be better methods in the future and they want to save those remaining letters for future tests. Also if they got matching DNA from two different letters it would be great.
Wondering if research would not be done/needed if it relatives were known.
Example: dna produces profile of someone who is deceased. That person is somehow identified but further confirmation (for some reason) may be needed. If the closest next-of-kin were known (male first cousin), wouldn’t it be possible to just go to that person directly for whatever information (saving time time and expense of research)?
Sorry for what is probably a stupid question but just wondering if perhaps such a situation could apply here and be what is going on and perhaps explain some of the murkiness and what seems to be an inordinate delay in giving out something as simple as a progress report!!!
Well, repeating what Paul Holes said about the GSK case, through geneology research they finally narrowed it down to five subjects and even then JDD was not a standout suspect. It took more direct DNA profiling to narrow down that list of five and I’m not that familiar with the GSK case but I think they found JDD through his daughter’s DNA? However the DA wanted a direct match from a new sample obtained from JDD, which they got and matched.
That could be a problem in the Zodiac case if there’s no way to retrieve a current profile from a suspect, say that suspect is dead, has no children, etc. I guess my point is, even developing a DNA profile might not solve the case, at least not enough to charge someone.
<One reason could be that if this fails, there might be better methods in the future and they want to save those remaining letters for future tests.>
Agreed. Test 10, save 10.
Would genealogy work always be required?
What if someone were positively identified via dna and their name was able to be determined a/c match? Then other information could be obtained (including names of possible relatives)?
In my opinion, the only way this case gets solved is if DNA is developed from Zodiac, and matched thru genealogy to a suspect. The days of saying a guy looks Zodiac, or his handwriting does…are long gone. Also, I think by now we can give up on the entire dream scenario where a relative discovers Zodiac’s diary, hood, weapons, ciphers, etc
If DNA doesn’t get it done, it won’t be solved
Mott, Do you really believe that? Isn’t it possible if that mtDNA from Bates is a match and those few markers they developed from the gloves in combination with a bunch of circumstantial evidence and whatever it is they have that is not public might all add up to enough if they really found the right suspect? I don’t believe they are going to develop anymore DNA or they would have by now. So I would have to give up hope if I believed more DNA was the only way at this time.
<Example: dna produces profile of someone who is deceased. That person is somehow identified but further confirmation (for some reason) may be needed. If the closest next-of-kin were known (male first cousin), wouldn’t it be possible to just go to that person directly for whatever information (saving time time and expense of research)?>
If you say ‘that person is identified’, then they go old fashioned circumstantial to confirm – they don’t need a relative at that point.
But if they did, a relative up to a 3rd or 4th cousin would be a unique match to the suspect’s DNA profile.
Unless it was the old system, before the DeAngelo methodology breakthrough. In that system, police crime labs typically use less sophisticated testing — and there you would need a brother, or possibly a father or son, to yield a match.
When the actual Zodiac is identified and Voigt realizes he has nothing to do with Gaikowski, we’re all gonna have a ball! ^^
I’d hope we’d actually be interested in his identification and hopefully prosecution, not whether he turns out to be anyone’s suspect.
Agreed.
I hope I’m that noble and magnanimous. However, at this point, it’s awfully hard not to root for someone’s suspects to be ruled out when that somebody attacks you for supporting them.
Who are you? Name and alleged law firm. Pretending to be an attorney. Seriously? And you didn’t even know civilians can view evidence?
Hey Everyone, please do NOT use foul language disrespectful language towards ANY member here. If I see that kind of stuff, that will result in a ban.
If you have a difference of opinion, or don’t personally like someone, just avoid them.
If anyone sees any abusive posts or bad language please report it to a moderator
Good idea, this is a good forum and a nice alternative to places like reddit.
I hope I’m that noble and magnanimous. However, at this point, it’s awfully hard not to root for someone’s suspects to be ruled out when that somebody attacks you for supporting them.
Who are you? Name and alleged law firm. Pretending to be an attorney. Seriously? And you didn’t even know civilians can view evidence?
Morf, isn’t that disrespectful from Voigt? What about members trolling the forum like he incessantly does?
I hope I’m that noble and magnanimous. However, at this point, it’s awfully hard not to root for someone’s suspects to be ruled out when that somebody attacks you for supporting them.
Who are you? Name and alleged law firm. Pretending to be an attorney. Seriously? And you didn’t even know civilians can view evidence?
Morf, isn’t that disrespectful from Voigt? What about members trolling the forum like he incessantly does?
How is it disrespectful? "ithinkiknow" claimed that I knew him. Go back and look. So I’m asking who he is.
I’m talking to Morf, thank you.
Who are you? Name and alleged law firm. Pretending to be an attorney. Seriously? And you didn’t even know civilians can view evidence?
Morf, isn’t that disrespectful from Voigt? What about members trolling the forum like he incessantly does?
How is it disrespectful? "ithinkiknow" claimed that I knew him. Go back and look. So I’m asking who he is.
Tom, you can claim victory and move on now. You uncovered me as a nothing, a nobody. I claimed to be a lawyer, but you figured me out. Further, it is obvious I did not make an impression up on you the numerous times we emailed. It’s okay. You win. Let’s move on for the sake of civility on this message board and for the sake of the efficacy of us amateur sleuths, independently and collectively.
If it is so important to you that you continue bickering with me, please do so off this message board.
