"1978 letter has long been suspected of being written by a Manson Family personage – especially as it mentions Eldridge Cleaver." . You’re detailing the May 2nd 1978 letter. The 1978 letter in the SFPD report is April 24th 1978.

Ahh, my bad. The "city pig Toschi" one then. So, if Keel is correct and all roads lead to Rome, the Exorcist letter was …

If Keel is correct the ramifications are far reaching.

If Keel is correct the ramifications are far reaching.

No shit, Sherlock! I’m surprised these letters/envelopes haven’t gotten "lost in transit".

If Mike R was as good at publicity as he is at writing and sleuthing, this stuff and their ramifications (and his BOOK) would be all over the papers and podcasts. Bet he’s not on SFPD’s Xmass card list.

It would seem logical to take whatever Zodiac-case material you have that has yielded, or will yield, a profile that can be run through Gedmatch – and do that.

Suspected forgeries, confirmed forgeries where LE thinks they know who the forger is, items that may be contaminated with genetic material from multiple individuals — who cares?

Just run it all.

Hi,

I don’t know what is being said here but let me clarify that Keel said that the DNA from the April 1978 letter matches the DNA he found on ONE OF THE 1974 LETTERS. He did not specify that it was or was not the Exorcist letter. That is just my own opinion based on everything I know.

And yes, sadly I am a researcher not a publicist. I feel my story will eventually find an audience or be read by the right person who might write an article, etc. I was disappointed that Zoellner’s article in May on a site that is read by Hollywood types did not generate some interest. But who knows? I am just happy that my book is getting good reviews on Amazon. Someone told me years ago that I could not write. I hope I proved that person wrong, lol.

And if I am right about the DNA being a dog and pony show, certainly nobody at SFPD wants to see my work publicized.

Mike

Hi,

As we saw in Kevin Fagan’s article, according to the anonymous police source, the odds of DNA solving the Zodiac case are low. This is over handled evidence that is contaminated and that does not seem to have any DNA from the sender on it. No matter what you think about Zodiac not knowing to avoid licking stamps and envelopes in the 1960s, apparently that is exactly what happened. They were never licked.

In my book, I offer an alternative to solving the case using any of the questionable physical evidence. According to one of the deans of behavioral profiling, you develop a profile of the perpetrator and then build a circumstantial case against that suspect that links him to the crimes in question. According to the profiler a full 70% of major cases are solved using only circumstantial evidence. In my ebook, The Hunt for Zodiac, I present the only suspect ever developed in the history of the case that can be shown to have written even one letter on Monarch sized paper. He looks just like the sketch, was all but identified by Lindsey Robbins as the man he saw murder Paul Stine and is the ONLY suspect ever developed in the histroy of the case who was interviewed by the police (as a potential witness, yes, but who would have suspected someone who lived in PH to kill a cabbie for chump change that night?) after any of the Zodiac murders. And oh yes, he had a legitimate reason to know about saliva testing even in the 1960s and it was unrelated to DNA science.

People who have not read my book mock the possibility that "someone like" KQ could have been Zodiac. But those who DO read my book say it is difficult to imagine that anyone else could have been the man who committed the Zodiac murders.

That my ideas are taken seriously is evidenced by the fact that SFPD read my report in 2012 and sent it up the line right up to and including the Chief and made a (feeble and ineffective, due to his wealth and political power–"rich people’s justice") attempt to investigate him. Because of his wealth and power, nobody from LE ever interviewed him about my evidence. In 2000, Napa SO told me that they wouldn’t interview him because the officer there "didn’t want to lose his job." If I thought KQ was Zodiac, the officer invited me to go to his mansion, knock on the door and ask him myself. I laughed at that notion but six years later, I did exactly that and was lied to to my face in response to my simple questions. As Chris Cuomo says every night, "If you are innocent, why lie?"

Read my book and I think you will not only learn a lot about DNA science and profiling but you will read about the best suspect ever developed in the Zodiac case. Or at least those were the words of retired (and now deceased) Solano Superior Court judge Eric Uldall in 2001.

Mike

Mike, just to let you know I finally started reading your book the other day, and whilst I am not far enough through it to comment on the meat of the investigation, I have found it to be a brilliant read so far. I did have high expectations based on your forum presence over the years and you haven’t disappointed. 5 star review posted to Amazon UK (normally I reserve judgement until I have finished a book but I kind of know how this one ends!)

Hi,

Thanks James. You’ll find that the people who criticize me the loudest and heartiest are the ones who refuse to read my book but still deem themselves able to trash my research, POI and conclusions. So be it. Those who have read it in general have a much different point of view.

Hope you enjoy the rest of the book even though you know the ending, lol. I think you’ll find some surprises along the way to hold your interest.

Mike

In your book Mike you draw a distinction between genuine and non-genuine Zodiac letters, based on the fact that Kjell Qvale knew to avoid licking the envelope and stamp, on account of his horse racing knowledge and saliva. The genuine Zodiac letters therefore had little if any salivary amylase or epithelial cells. You have intimated that the 1978 letter and the Exorcist letter were likely forgeries based on the fact that the Exorcist letter was the only 1974 letter tested in the San Francisco Police Department DNA list, and both of these letters clearly had DNA found. The SFPD list labels the Exorcist letter with "Envelope processed for DNA-cells found", therefore Kjell Qvale would have unlikely been the author of this letter because he knew to avoid licking the stamp and envelope.

In your book you make a case for Kjell Qvale being Zodiac by using the Kathleen Johns letter, but primarily the Little List letter regarding radians and automobile knowledge, along with the British angle and The Mikado. You use the radians argument regarding the Blue Rock Springs attack, Lake Herman Road and the payphone, citing St Johns Mine Road. The Kathleen Johns and Little List letter were marked in the San Francisco Police Department DNA files exactly the same as the Exorcist letter,"Envelope processed for DNA-cells found". Therefore, they should be treated exactly the same as the Exorcist letter, and placed in the non-Zodiac pile, because Kjell Qvale wouldn’t have licked these. How do you reconcile making a case for the Kathleen Johns and Little List communications with respect to Kjell Qvale, while believing the Exorcist letter is not genuine Zodiac material, when all three communications were attributed "Envelope processed for DNA-cells found" in the San Francisco Police Department DNA list.
Thanks.

Hi,

Cells found does not necessarily mean that the letter was licked by the sender.You know that, right? How many cells were found? Was saliva found? If there were a few cells, that could be contaminant DNA on the outside of the letter because SFPD did not selectively test only the backs of the stamps and envelopes. Cells can be deposited on the outside of the envelope by someone touching the letter and depositing some cells without any saliva being deposited. Alan Keel told both me and Lafferty that the true Z letters might just as well have been sealed with tap water. If you want to dispute those findings, I suggest you contact Mr. Keel, not me. As for the Exorcist letter, I suggest that one as the second forgery because it is the ONLY 1974 letter on the chart.

Let’s say that you can find zero cells on one letter, 12 cells per sq. mm. on another and if a letter were licked you’d be expecting to find something like 1200 cells per sq. mm. You could say for letter two that there was no saliva found but that you found a VERY low concentration of cells, 12 per mm-squared. These cells did not appear because the letter was licked by the sender and there is not enough of them to say that the letter was licked because they are two orders of magnitude too low (12 vs. 1200) for that to be true but "cells were found" even though not nearly enough for the letter to have been licked and in the absence of saliva because they were picked up on the FRONT of the stamp from the environment in various ways.

Mike

Hi,

Just received this review on Amazon:

"4.0 out of 5 stars Very good. Objective. Riviting. Worth reading. Though I didn’t like the obvious typos. I just might be fully convinced now of this suspect. I really liked that the author mentions his struggles, and how he came to his conclusions. This author is believable, and humble to me. Verified Purchase

I admire this author’s guts, determination in his research, in spite of his admitted struggles. Enjoyed immensely, though a dark subject. I hope and pray for the victims families."

All that strong verbiage but only 4 stars.  That is because noticed the typos that nobody else had ever commented on.  Most of the typos were contextual, not ones that would have shown up in red in Word.  I edit a lot and then forget to reword around the edit.  A wise friend I have told me that an author can proof his own MS because he reads what is supposed to be there in his mind.  Of course, my agent was supposed to proof it but she apparently only used spell-check. As of yesterday, she is no longer my agent. So I am in search of a new one lol. (The timing was coincidental, BTW.)

BTW, this guy misspelled "riveting" in his review, so errors can happen to anyone lol.
Mike

Latest Amazon review:

Albert Maule
Very good. Objective. Riviting. Worth reading. Though I didn’t like the obvious typos. I just might be fully convinced now of this suspect. I really liked that the author mentions his struggles, and how he came to his conclusions. This author is believable, and humble to me.
October 11, 2019
Verified Purchase
Format: Kindle Edition
I admire this author’s guts, determination in his research, in spite of his admitted struggles. Enjoyed immensely, though a dark subject. I hope and pray for the victims families.

Hi,

I have been forced to defend myself and my research something fierce recently from outrageous attacks on my integrity and truthfulness from people who have not even read my book. I find it rather incredible that there are people who say that they don’t believe things that I wrote in my book, especially since I am a guy who went out of his way to pen a book with nearly 200 footnotes, so that I could at least try to document everything I say.

So it is nice to be able to report that I have received yet another five-star review from a name that is well-known in the case, Dr. David Van Nuys:

"As a co-author of the 2002 book, This Is The Zodiac Speaking, I’ve enjoyed an off and on correspondence with Michael Rodelli as he dug into the mysteries surrounding the Zodiac serial killer case. He is such a talented, tireless and persistent investigator that I was early on fairly persuaded that he had in fact identified the Zodiac. I’m glad to see that his years of dedication to the project has finally culminated in such well-written and well-argued book. I’m about 98% persuaded that he has successfully solved the case. I’m afraid I need to see some physical evidence to get me past that final 2%. I keep hoping that someday someone will find a piece of binding physical evidence in an old attic or basement. This hope says more about me than the case Rodelli has so carefully built-up. If there is a flaw in his reasoning, I can’t spot it."

I saw myself referred to as "Five Star Mike" on Reddit the other day. So be it. If you were to write a book on the case that is being well-reviewed but largely ignored (in contrast to, say, Gary Stewart’s book and his mostly discredited evidence), why not try to persuade skeptics to read it and give my suspect a chance by reminding them of the (mostly) good reviews I’ve received?

BTW, the reference to there being no discernible flaw in my reasoning closely echoes Mike Kelleher’s reaction when I showed him what is now Chapter 15 in my book, my solution to Zodiac’s first bus bomb as a map to a "certain house" in PH, in December 1999. He said he tried his best but that he could find no leaps of logic or flaws in the way I argued my solution to that diagram. That reasoning is explained in detail in that chapter.

Mike

Here is a tweet I saw today from a poster named Snark:

If you still think the Zodiac killer remains unknown, you haven’t read @MikeRodelli’s book. A very compelling investigation.