Very interesting, your effort in reaching out to a professional is commendable.

Very interesting, your effort in reaching out to a professional is commendable.

Thanks, jacob.

She’s may not give the opinion that everyone was hoping for in terms of Riverside, but she is a professional with an impeccable reputation.

"2. The Desktop Poem WAS NOT written by Zodiac"

I’ve the same problem with this conclusion as with the original.

Thanks, Chaucer I look forward to reading this closely as I like methodological approaches. It was very generous of them to do this. It’s great you included the Paul Stine letter as an incontrovertible point of comparison,.

I’ve thought for some idea that getting more independent expert eyes on the case would be a good idea. For example, commissioning an artist to draw a new sketch of Zodiac based on the witness descriptions.

Can you ask your friend to look at the handwriting of the Zodiac suspects and judge whether or not she thinks there is a match with Zodiac’s handwriting? Here are some suspects I would like to get her opinion on.

Don Cheney
Fred Manalli
Hal Snook
Richard Gaikowski
Ross Sullivan
Ted Kaczynski

I’ve thought for some idea that getting more independent expert eyes on the case would be a good idea. For example, commissioning an artist to draw a new sketch of Zodiac based on the witness descriptions.

Would be a redundant exercise, which would probably cause more harm than good to this case. Artists have to sit down with a witness in the days after a crime when the memory is fresh. You can’t have them sit down and do this decade later. Or even have a sketch artist turn general descriptions into a sketch.

For good or bad we are stuck with the sketches we have already.

Interesting stuff for sure. It does somewhat make me even more sure though the opinions of handwriting experts is not worth much salt. Seems to be plenty of likely but not conclusive. Or likely but we can’t be 100 percent sure because the writer tried to disguise their handwriting. All very wishy-washy IMO.

But very fascinating to see someone with expert knowledge do a fresh look at this nonetheless.

Can you ask your friend to look at the handwriting of the Zodiac suspects and judge whether or not she thinks there is a match with Zodiac’s handwriting? Here are some suspects I would like to get her opinion on.

Don Cheney
Fred Manalli
Hal Snook
Richard Gaikowski
Ross Sullivan
Ted Kaczynski

She’s not a friend. She was a QDE that I reached out to through my professional connections. I would not feel comfortable continuing to ask her to look at this and that. She already spent working on this for nearly two months.

Interesting stuff for sure. It does somewhat make me even more sure though the opinions of handwriting experts is not worth much salt. Seems to be plenty of likely but not conclusive. Or likely but we can’t be 100 percent sure because the writer tried to disguise their handwriting. All very wishy-washy IMO.

But very fascinating to see someone with expert knowledge do a fresh look at this nonetheless.

I am on record questioning the reliability of handwriting analysis and forensic “science” in general. That said, this person is highly trained and certified in her field. Take it for what you feel it’s worth I guess.

Could she do the Eureka envelope?

Analysis of the handwriting is pointless without access to the original letters.

Thank you Chaucer, it is extremely generous of you to take the time a trouble to reach out and have this done.

The report contains it’s own perfectly good 8 point summary.

What’s not bought out very clearly is the incredibly short sample size of the Bates had to die letters. It’s difficult for me to be aware of their brevity and take this reports conclusions seriously.

However, I think on the whole the report is valuable and carries a small slither of weight in favor of a different author. But the evidence is slight, very slight indeed.

One point not mentioned, and one that I will continue to champion, is that it is not entirely fair to say the Bates had to die letters are of "unknown authorship". In the location where one would expect to find a signature, the author has indeed signed the letters with a "Z", or perhaps more fairly a "squiggly Z". This simple fact is constantly forgotten and overlooked, but in my opinion is the single most striking feature of the Bates had to die letters. So striking in fact, that hence forth I will be referring to both letters exclusively as the Squiggly "Z" letters.

I’m willing to concede that the "Z" is indeed squiggly, and that it’s precise meaning is unknown. I’m also quite happy to concede that a "squiggly Z", is not the same as the word "Zodiac". I am bothered though that Bates skeptics continue to down play the "squiggly Z", offering all kinds of increasingly esoteric and obscure explanations of its meaning. I find this reasoning to be very contrarian, and not at all fair minded. The bottom line is that the two monikers are similar. It therefore seems unlikely, given estimates on the number of active serial killers, that two such killers could be active in such close proximity and only a few years apart. Add to that the fact that both killers wrote letters, regardless of the similarities between the letters, and there being two different people looks even less likely.

The only caveat I can think of is that the Zodiac case facts made investigators selective of cases with similar features, so they look for similar cases and when they find the Bates case and the Squiggly Z Letters an apparent match is found, when in reality it’s just selection at work.

I still find the idea of two "Z"s, no matter who squiggly, hard to swallow.

Thank you Chaucer, it is extremely generous of you to take the time a trouble to reach out and have this done.

The report contains it’s own perfectly good 8 point summary.

What’s not bought out very clearly is the incredibly short sample size of the Bates had to die letters. It’s difficult for me to be aware of their brevity and take this reports conclusions seriously.

However, I think on the whole the report is valuable and carries a small slither of weight in favor of a different author. But the evidence is slight, very slight indeed.

One point not mentioned, and one that I will continue to champion, is that it is not entirely fair to say the Bates had to die letters are of "unknown authorship". In the location where one would expect to find a signature, the author has indeed signed the letters with a "Z", or perhaps more fairly a "squiggly Z". This simple fact is constantly forgotten and overlooked, but in my opinion is the single most striking feature of the Bates had to die letters. So striking in fact, that hence forth I will be referring to both letters exclusively as the Squiggly "Z" letters.

I’m willing to concede that the "Z" is indeed squiggly, and that it’s precise meaning is unknown. I’m also quite happy to concede that a "squiggly Z", is not the same as the word "Zodiac". I am bothered though that Bates skeptics continue to down play the "squiggly Z", offering all kinds of increasingly esoteric and obscure explanations of its meaning. I find this reasoning to be very contrarian, and not at all fair minded. The bottom line is that the two monikers are similar. It therefore seems unlikely, given estimates on the number of active serial killers, that two such killers could be active in such close proximity and only a few years apart. Add to that the fact that both killers wrote letters, regardless of the similarities between the letters, and there being two different people looks even less likely.

The only caveat I can think of is that the Zodiac case facts made investigators selective of cases with similar features, so they look for similar cases and when they find the Bates case and the Squiggly Z Letters an apparent match is found, when in reality it’s just selection at work.

I still find the idea of two "Z"s, no matter who squiggly, hard to swallow.

I think you’ve made some fair points. My only response would be that I don’t see a “squiggly Z”. I see a lower case M and a capital L. Also, I think this is being viewed with retrospect. We give these letters meaning because of the name Zodiac that came later. Taken in isolation, that signature really has no meaning. It could mean anything, and to those who think the letters were written by the Zodiac, it is the Zodiac initialing his name before he ever gave himself a name.