A question.

The SFPD lab in 2002 allegedly obtained DNA from a postage stamp.

Then a couple years ago it was announced that the DNA was obtained from the front of the stamp and not the back, and was thus invalid, (and ALA who had been cleared was back in play).

However, wouldn’t DNA–even on the front of the stamp–most likely belong to the person who licked the stamp, and pressed it down with a trace of saliva on his fingers?

A question.

The SFPD lab in 2002 allegedly obtained DNA from a postage stamp.

Then a couple years ago it was announced that the DNA was obtained from the front of the stamp and not the back, and was thus invalid, (and ALA who had been cleared was back in play).

However, wouldn’t DNA–even on the front of the stamp–most likely belong to the person who licked the stamp, and pressed it down with a trace of saliva on his fingers?

Maybe. But, lots of people handled those letters, even before the police ever got to examine them. I think the bigger problem with getting DNA off of the Zodiac letters is the fact that they were stored in hot, dirty warehouses for decades. Heat degrades DNA. Another problem is that SFPD tested a variety of Zodiac letters and found no saliva on the envelopes or stamps. However, two letters had lots of saliva on them. One of those letters is considered a forgery. The second such letter is thought to be a possible forgery. So, whatever DNA happens to be on those particular letters is probably not even Zodiac’s DNA.

The fact that DNA was obtained from the front of the stamp rather than the rear is an error so egregious that it beggars the imagination. Absolute incompetence and negligence that, in a just world, would cost someone their job.

One of those letters is considered a forgery.

Possible forgeries could be authentic Zodiac letters (personal judgement dictates which ones appear to be legitimate). But funding and forensic resources, which are limited, are deciding factors in what evidence to test. Would they be granted for plausible but not definite Zodiac communications? We just don’t know.

For example, I tend to think the Exorcist letter is authentic and that forensic testing would definitely be warranted.

If they have usable genetic material from ANY Zodiac letters — real, or thought to be fake — profile it and run the suckers through the matching. After 50 years don’t assume anything. Even if a letter is proved to be fake, IDing ANYONE in this case may turn up a lead.

One of those letters is considered a forgery.

Possible forgeries could be authentic Zodiac letters (personal judgement dictates which ones appear to be legitimate). But funding and forensic resources, which are limited, are deciding factors in what evidence to test. Would they be granted for plausible but not definite Zodiac communications? We just don’t know.

For example, I tend to think the Exorcist letter is authentic and that forensic testing would definitely be warranted.

The testing was done. If I remember correctly, one of the 1974 letters matched the DNA from the 1978 letter that almost everyone thinks is a forgery. SFPD didn’t state which of the 1974 letters matched the purported 1978 forgery. But, the DNA is only a partial profile. So, it would yield too many matches, which would just lend to a wild goose chase.

If they have usable genetic material from ANY Zodiac letters — real, or thought to be fake — profile it and run the suckers through the matching. After 50 years don’t assume anything. Even if a letter is proved to be fake, IDing ANYONE in this case may turn up a lead.

It’s a partial profile. So, you would get thousands of hits that are not true matches. If we actually knew that the partial profile came from the killer, then the DNA could be useful to exclude suspects. The difference between BTK and EARONS and Zodiac is the former left semen at the crime scene…we knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was the killer’s DNA. We don’t know that DNA from a letter is actually the killer’s DNA. It may be, but we don’t really know that.

Forensics is different today, a partial profile can be computer sequenced into a full profile and uploaded. For the Cleveland unknown man (Joseph Chandler?) they had a 7 percent profile from genetic material and the computer sequenced the other 93 percent and they ID’d him.

The other untapped source is the Stine cab, and re-combing that thing under modern forensics. The solve is likely in there somewhere.

Forensics is different today, a partial profile can be computer sequenced into a full profile and uploaded. For the Cleveland unknown man (Joseph Chandler?) they had a 7 percent profile from genetic material and the computer sequenced the other 93 percent and they ID’d him.

The other untapped source is the Stine cab, and re-combing that thing under modern forensics. The solve is likely in there somewhere.

What DNA would you expect to find in the Stine cab? And wouldn’t anything left have long since degraded in 50 plus years?

Forensics is different today, a partial profile can be computer sequenced into a full profile and uploaded. For the Cleveland unknown man (Joseph Chandler?) they had a 7 percent profile from genetic material and the computer sequenced the other 93 percent and they ID’d him.

The other untapped source is the Stine cab, and re-combing that thing under modern forensics. The solve is likely in there somewhere.

This is not 100% accurate. I know because I am colleagues with the woman who solved this case.

Forensics is different today, a partial profile can be computer sequenced into a full profile and uploaded. For the Cleveland unknown man (Joseph Chandler?) they had a 7 percent profile from genetic material and the computer sequenced the other 93 percent and they ID’d him.

The other untapped source is the Stine cab, and re-combing that thing under modern forensics. The solve is likely in there somewhere.

What DNA would you expect to find in the Stine cab? And wouldn’t anything left have long since degraded in 50 plus years?

If a tiny fleck of dandruff bounced off the killer’s head as the cab sped along Pine Street for example, that would be in play now. The difficulty of course is that the cab also almost certainly contains genetic material from others. So it would be a process. But why not, what else do we have? (Yes, some material would have degraded, but hairs and eyelashes and dandruff would still be worthy samples.)

If a tiny fleck of dandruff bounced off the killer’s head as the cab sped along Pine Street for example, that would be in play now. The difficulty of course is that the cab also almost certainly contains genetic material from others. So it would be a process. But why not, what else do we have? (Yes, some material would have degraded, but hairs and eyelashes and dandruff would still be worthy samples.)

That would place someone in the cab, but there would be know way to know when they were in the cab. I don’t see how that helps.

If a tiny fleck of dandruff bounced off the killer’s head as the cab sped along Pine Street for example, that would be in play now. The difficulty of course is that the cab also almost certainly contains genetic material from others. So it would be a process. But why not, what else do we have? (Yes, some material would have degraded, but hairs and eyelashes and dandruff would still be worthy samples.)

That would place someone in the cab, but there would be know way to know when they were in the cab. I don’t see how that helps.

If a profile led to a known suspect or POI, then they’d have something. If none of the profiles they procured from the cab matched a known suspect, that’s where the grunt work comes in, but there are plenty of volunteers to do that.

If a profile led to a known suspect or POI, then they’d have something. If none of the profiles they procured from the cab matched a known suspect, that’s where the grunt work comes in, but there are plenty of volunteers to do that.

So, I don’t know if that’s true. If Lawrence Kane’s DNA is found in the cab, does that mean he killed Stine? I don’t think so. It’s a possibility. But all that the DNA proves is that he rode in the cab at some point.

Right, it doesn’t prove it, but it gives us more than we’ve obtained in 50 years of the case — which unfortunately continues to be zippo.