Of course, another possibility is that there is another 1974 letter besides the Exorcist that is not the Zodiac that contains the same DNA as the 1978 letter.

In the DNA list of communications, the Exorcist letter was processed with cells found, the SLA letter wasn’t listed and the Citizen card and Red Phantom letter had no attribution in the right hand column, suggesting they weren’t tested. So what Mike is reasonably concluding is that if the 1978 and one 1974 letter matched through DNA, it is a rational conclusion to presume it’s the 1978 letter and Exorcist letter. http://www.zodiackiller.com/SFPDDNA.html

But yes, it’s certainly possible all five letters could contain the same DNA, if you hold the notion they were all written Zodiac – or none – or any other combination.

Yes, I understand how Mike reached his conclusion, and it’s perfectly valid – likely, in fact. But perhaps, there was a letter sent in 1974 that isn’t on that list – perhaps one that was immediately dismissed as fake.

Still, the 1978 letter was hoaxed, and if Mike’s conclusion is accurate, then the Exorcist letter is hoaxed too.

Hi,

Richard, I could not have said it better. All I’m doing is using left-brained thinking and looking at the documents that are available online to all of us. There is no magical or "agenda based" reasoning here. (Some people have accused me of that because they say I am trying to "bury" the palm prints on the Exorcist letter PRESUMING they did not match KQ. No such thing. Just following my nose. Just horse sense.) If I’m wrong, I’m wrong but in that case, maybe SFPD or someone else can tell me why I am wrong and which 1974 letter it is.

Hi,

Richard, I could not have said it better. All I’m doing is using left-brained thinking and looking at the documents that are available online to all of us. There is no magical or "agenda based" reasoning here. (Some people have accused me of that because they say I am trying to "bury" the palm prints on the Exorcist letter PRESUMING they did not match KQ. No such thing. Just following my nose. Just horse sense.) If I’m wrong, I’m wrong but in that case, maybe SFPD or someone else can tell me why I am wrong and which 1974 letter it is.

Yes Mike, it’s the obvious conclusion based on only what we know. The only thing that is confusing, is the incompatability of anybody believing the Exorcist letter to be genuine Zodiac, while simultaneously craving for Zodiac DNA to be discovered – If we contend the Exorcist letter to have a full and viable DNA fingerprint. If Keel was correct (and I have no reason to disbelieve him), then the search for Zodiac DNA shouldn’t be required for such people.

Chaucer, there is another letter mailed in 1974, to Mary Pilker in December. My guess, is most believe that communication isn’t Zodiac. In terms of the 1978 letter, out of 113 people in a poll on my site, 66 believe it’s real. This communication was attributed "not authentic" on the DNA chart, but that doesn’t mean it was determined "not authentic" because of DNA, bearing in mind we don’t have any Zodiac DNA to test it against. Unless of course, they know who the DNA belongs to (or the sex of the donor).

I tend to believe the 1978 letter genuine, but if Alan Keel is correct, that should compel me to believe the Exorcist letter to be genuine (based on the assertions above), but a letter which I have mixed feelings about.