You’ve brought up another interesting point, Marie: the necessity of a relative’s DNA being used to provide identification. I’m no legal scholar, but it seems to me that said relative could not be compelled to provide a DNA sample. Right or wrong?

The Supreme Court had ruled that anything put out for trash/recycling is considered, in essence, fair game. And it is true what you see on tv, when they invite someone in for questioning, give them a soda can or such to drink out of, and then take it, it is perfectly legal to obtain a sample that way. Or a glass at a restaurant, tossed cigarette butt, etc.

A few other ideas I’ve had- if, for example, a known sibling had children who were willing, you could use the Y chromosome if male or mitochondrial DNA if female. And possibly other members of a family tree.

Also, if for example, an individual in a family had an illness requiring a biopsy, sealed microscope slides would have been made and kept- also allowable for testing. I am not sure what legalities could present themselves in that case, however I believe once the sample has been taken, its fair game if the hospital will allow it.

But sadly no one can typically be compelled. But if the evidence points toward a sibling, they might be ordered to as they would then become a suspect themselves.

-m

Thanks Norse, for the overview on what you can recall, and Marie for your expertise. Someone re-posted this somewhere and I screen-shot it because I found it helpful to see in one place, not exactly sure what all of it means:

Thanks Murray–

Here is the whole thing:

Tom posted this link back in May of 2001:
http://www.zodiackiller.com/SFPDDNA.html (further discussion) – http://zodiackiller.fr.yuku.com/topic/6 … cInkPlVhBd

Hi-

Broken record man here. Search on the name "keel" please to get info on the condition of the Z evidence as re: lack of saliva on letters.

Keel said that there are two forgeries which have matching DNA. One is the 1978 letter. The other is from 1974. He said he "could not recall" which 1974 letter it was but look at PERT chart. Only one was analyzed. An article as far back as June or so 1978 accuses Toschi or having written the Exorcist letter, so it is no revelation even though people get up at arms because of the sacred palm print.

Thanks.

MIke

It is interesting that the 1978 letter flat out states: "Dna sample obtained".

Yet, none of the others suggest they actually got any results from their tests. I wish it were more clear.

How forthcoming is SFPD with their info? A few cells now can be all you need. But what did they do with them? I would assume found them by putting the samples on a microscope slide, but who knows. If that is the case, a few cells could be great, as long as they sealed them in the slide, or saved them in an acceptable manor.

And what did they specifically use to rule out ALA? I think it was a mitochondrial marker, but I read they saved at least a sample from his liver at autopsy for future forensics.

And I would love Stine’s shirt. That seems like potential.

-m

It is interesting that the 1978 letter flat out states: "Dna sample obtained".

Yet, none of the others suggest they actually got any results from their tests. I wish it were more clear.

Exactly, Tahoe — I’ve looked at this thing a lot and while its good to see an organized list, the notes are so brief it is tough to derive meaning from them. Maybe it is just an inventory of sorts. We could speculate that the police departments understand the shorthand and have a deeper understanding of conclusions about the evidence — either slides preserving the recovered cells, or an awareness of lost or contaminated evidence — along with the respective back stories. But even if they did and we are not privy to it, so many years gone by…

With new techniques these days, as Marie mentions, it would be great to get another look, if anything still exists.

How forthcoming is SFPD with their info?

Depends on who you ask. Tom’s reports were posted, and Mike R gave a brief summary of the information he got from Alan Keel.

According to this ABC news story from 2007:

"in the San Francisco police DNA lab, Dr. Cydne Holt examined some of the Zodiac letters and made a surprising discovery. "I found a partial DNA fingerprint from a male individual who, at sometime, has had contact with the stamp," Holt said."

Mike B at ZKF says that it is from the Nov. 8, "dripping pen" card.

In 2013 an SFPD technician spoke to Sandy. Hope she doesn’t mind me quoting her. Here’s what she said.

There was an SFPD forensic woman Pamela Hoffsass, ( Not sure of that spelling?) I spoke to her , after she talked about the DNA she said she has on Zodiac. I asked her about that DNA , she said yes it is a partial, but with how fast DNA forensics has been improving, she believes that it will be the DNA they have that will solve the case.

http://zodiackillersite.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=747&hilit=screening&start=10

So I guess specifically, not really. For Arthur Leigh Allen I know his sample was tested from preserved brain matter. Whatever that means compared to any other DNA, I have no idea.

Can DNA tests be preserved numerically, or, say, on/as a chart so that it’s not necessary to rely on samples that may degrade?

Can DNA tests be preserved numerically, or, say, on/as a chart so that it’s not necessary to rely on samples that may degrade?

Any DNA test thats been run should have a size standard "ladder" run with it and I would assume a "positive" and "negative" control, in the case of the older technologies, so yes, this data can be compared with a set of DNAs run much later. (A lot of labs can be sloppy and leave of the negative control which is everything in your reaction mix except a DNA sample. If you get results in a neg. control, there is contamination. The positive is usually just to make sure the reaction mix and analysis were done correctly.)

So the short answer is yes, they should have data we can use for comparison, even in the newer technologies.

The best older technology was when they started looking directly at SNPs, which stands for a Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (pronounced "snips"), rather than length variation. These would be DNA context specific, and easily comparable, especially with the cutting edge technologies. In simpler terms, those A, T, C, and G’s you see are nucleotides, and "poly"-"morphism" means different forms. In other words, if you are looking to eliminate a suspect- the crime scene DNA shows a T at a specific location, but the main suspect shows an A. You can then eliminate them. I think future technologies will rely on SNPs, but still there may be a need for the length variation in old samples if thats all they have.

It is also important to realize that a lot of our DNA has no known function, which is why these differences can accumulate.

Again, if anyone needs clarity or wants to learn more, let me know, especially in length variation. Its easy, yet hard to simplify- I’m doing my best. I remember in my high school AP class 20+ years ago, from our textbook my year to the next year it went from maybe 1/6 of the book to 1/4, and probably is now most of what is learned in high school bio.

-marie

A thought I had, which I why I am tracing the family back a bit and trying to locate Tim- is to get more info on him. He’s almost a ghost, but if we can track down a biopsy (hopefully in the US, though Canada might be ok), we would have a good sample to match.

A few other things that may not fit best here, but with regards to Tim they do- NYS will not release birth or death certs to non relatives until 75 years afterward. We know Ross was born in Syracuse, so I am going to see if Tim was also born here, unfortunately, it might prove hard to find as I will be looking through who knows how many newspapers for birth announcements. And by then, the family may have been in another state with similar laws. I guess we can’t get an ss# and app without a birthday? Its almost amusing what the feds will give away but a simple, non questioned birth or death in NYS is impossible.

-M

This is great thinking, Marie.

If there is any path to DNA that can narrow the field or confirm any of the suspicions we are tossing around, that would be the kind of fact-based footwork that will pay off. While it is difficult for me to follow some of the science you describe here, understanding a little more of the detail about the DNA evidence (and how it holds up over time) helps eliminate speculation and gets us looking at the right information.

I hadn’t thought about tracking down the birth records – maybe the very long Ross Sullivan thread will contain some detail about where the family might have been living at the time of Tim’s birth. I’ll start re-reading that again – anything to narrow your search through birth announcements in the paper would probably help.

I will send for Tim Sullivan’s marriage certificate. I have all the pertinent info to do that. It should state his birthdate and place.

This is my first post, so I may need to be brought up to speed. I am a criminalist (forensic DNA analyst of 14 years) for a Northern California crime-lab, however, my knowledge of the case is minimal, with much of it stemming from Robert Graysmith’s book. ANyway, according to web results and this discussion board, it sounds like a partial DNA profile was obtained fromone of the stamps on an envelope sent to one of the newspaper agencies. Can someone elaborate on this? Has this profile been uploaded to CODIS (Combined DNA Index System)? Have Y-STR’s (male targeted DNA typing) been done on this sample? Have the DNA profiles obtained from other envelopes/stamps been compared to this partial DNA profile?

Here are my thoughts on what should be done next:

1) If physical evidence remains from the stamps/envelopes or if extracted DNA remains from previously processed stamps/envelopes evidence, have the sample phenotyped using SNP ((single nucleotide polymorphisms) technology. This technology will give law enforcement an ideaof the facial features, hair color, eye color, skin tone, and even freckling among many other physical traits.

2) I recently saw this company at a forensics conference (AAFS – Orlando, FL) who is doing some pretty amazing things with SNP technology. Here is there website: https://snapshot.parabon-nanolabs.com/ and here is a YouTube video selling their product: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGGXm8DMC3k Disclaimer: In no way am I affiliated or representing this company, I was just very impressed withwhat they are doing to help law enforcement.

3) Although the process is expensive, San Francisco PD could benefit from having a facial phenotype to compare to past composite sketches, past suspect’s physical features, and future suspect’s physical features. I can even see it catching the attention of the media and bringing thecase to life (not that it needs any more life) and encouraging others to come forward if they recognize the generated phenotype.

4) If it is too expensive for San Francisco PD, but it’s something they would be interested in, I suggest the community come together and raise funds. Using something like www.Indiegogo.com or www.Gofundme.com I’m sure raising money would not be an issue, as so many people want to feel like they’re contributing to solving this case. Again, I could see this catching the attention of the media.

I just wanted to propose some different ideas that may have not been thought of already. Thanks for reading!
Ryan

Very interesting input, Ryan – welcome to the board!

There’s considerable confusion, not to say controversy, surrounding the Zodiac DNA. I don’t think anyone in the amateur community is privy to exactly what sort of material the authorities actually possess – nor precisely how this material has been tested/processed.

So, take this with a pinch of salt. But it seems that no profile has been uploaded to CODIS (because there aren’t enough markers).

What does male targeted typing mean in layman’s terms?

A sample was supposedly obtained from a questioned (not to say fake) Zodiac letter (from 1978) – and based on this sample they determined that Zodiac was not the author. Some of us have speculated that this conclusion was reached – simply – because they were able to determine that the sample was from a female. I’d be very interesting in hearing your thoughts on this, as some have claimed you cannot make that determination easily.

To clarify: This sample was by all accounts obtained and analyzed before the so-called Zodiac DNA had been obtained, so the conclusion mentioned could not have been based on a comparison between the ’78 sample and the Zodiac DNA. Which – if true – means that they either established whose DNA it was (a person who could not have been Zodiac) OR established something else, i.e. that the DNA belonged to a female.

Again, glad to have you on (the) board – looking forward to more contributions from someone who actually knows what he’s talking about.