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.

I think you’ve made some very unfair points. Normally I try a respect people opinions, if the matter at hand is truly ambiguous. But I don’t like it when people appeal to subjectivity alone as an argument. Subjectivity may be a strong argument when you’re dealing with something truly ambiguous, or cloudy, but some things are not terribly subjective at all. Take this "Z" symbol, it could be meant to represent any number of things, that is true, but to suggest that it looks more like a "M and a capital L" just seems like a weak attempt to cast doubt by making a weak appeal to subjectivity. I think you’re a bit of a contrarian and are very skilled at the subtle art of hole poking. What’s so diabolical about appeals to subjectivity, as weak though they often are, they’re incredibly hard to argue against. What am I to do? Conduct a survey and ask 1000 people with no knowledge of the case if they think the symbol looks more like a "Z", or a "M and L"? That would be a hell of an undertaking. Deep down though, I think you know very well that it looks quite a bit like a "Z".

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.

On the contrary, even taken in isolation, the similarity is striking. What you’re saying here doesn’t follow logically at all. The similarity between the two monikers forms a sound abductive argument. To suggest otherwise is either disingenuous, or obtuse.

The symbol does strictly speaking, does form the letter "Z". The fact that it may also form some other symbol does nothing to change this. I don’t think that is a matter of opinion. What I’m saying is that in terms of geometric shape, a "Z" is formed. Do you see what I’m saying? It may be that it’s not supposed to be a "Z", but it does contain all the needed properties and parameters of the symbol known as the letter "Z". A reasonable person cannot in all seriousness claim to not see a "Z". Is that fair? Is the "Z" for "Zodiac"? Who knows? Maybe.

I guess we’re kind of arguing over semantics, or maybe symbolism. I don’t know. All I know is it looks enough like a "Z" that’s its pretty unreasonable to just ignore. It’s also one of the most straight forward pieces of evidence in this case. It’s so plain and unadorned. You can make all the convoluted arguments in the would. You can chew over every piece of evidence in the case until you’re convinced of every crazy theory. But that "Z" stands alone in it’s simplicity. You have a letter signed by "Zodiac", you have a letter signed by "Z". It’s such a simple argument. Yes, you can argue against it, you can say it’s not a "Z". Maybe Zodiac isn’t "Zodiac", maybe it’s "MLodiac". Maybe there are actually three killers out there, "MLodiac", "Zodiac", and "Z". It’s still a refreshingly simple clue in a case that has a lot of subjective and convoluted nonsense. Maybe the simplicity is what’s dangerous. Maybe I’m being lulled by the appeal of such a simple clue. But I look at those two "Z"s and I just think "yeah, makes sense".

But regardless, what kind of probability are we dealing with here? Like I said, two "Z"s is hard to swallow no matter how you try to squint at it.

Also don’t even get me started about how ridiculous it is to look at any evidence in isolation. We’re reasoning primarily by abduction and induction, we need the whole picture to form any likely conclusion. Looking at things on their own is exactly what all the cranks and whackos are doing.

I do see the "M" and I do see the "L".

I was trying to be respectful. You decided not to be.

Believe what you want. I’m done talking about it with you.

Chaucer,

This is the first I am seeing of your attempts at comparing the letters for authorship. I had hoped for better results when I started reading it. Either way I thank you for taking the time to do this.

Soze

Chaucer,

This is the first I am seeing of your attempts at comparing the letters for authorship. I had hoped for better results when I started reading it. Either way I thank you for taking the time to do this.

Soze

Thanks, Soze. I’m suspicious of handwriting analysis in general and I assumed that whatever conclusions the expert reached would cause controversy, but I thought it was important and helpful to have someone new and contemporary take a fresh look.

Cheers.