Evidence proves or disproves something. It can be direct or indirect (circumstantial), physical, trace, testimonial, documentary, but it must be of forensic quality (which basically means the evidence will hold up in court). The items must must be analyzed (evaluated) and correlated (compared to and re-evaluated) with other known conditions/evidence. For instance, latent prints on the car door of the LHR killing that cannot be traced to either victim or responding officer(s) doesn’t mean the latents belong to the unknown subject, but having those latent prints is a start toward proving or disproving a forensic element of the crime. This is a brief synopsis in answer to your question, "What constitutes evidence in these Zodiac Killer crimes?"

The above applies to any criminal investigation. Research and investigation is not the fun and games television programs portray it to be. It’s work and often very frustrating work!

Please tell me what would be convincing evidence to you that someone was indeed the Zodiac Killer?

Any single piece of evidence linking one of these crimes with another. A fingerprint, footprint, bullet cartridge, hair, fibre, photo, matchbook, cigarette stub…… Anything.

Please tell me what would be convincing evidence to you that someone was indeed the Zodiac Killer?

Any single piece of evidence linking one of these crimes with another. A fingerprint, footprint, bullet cartridge, hair, fibre, photo, matchbook, cigarette stub…… Anything.

I’ve got to disagree, at least in principal. Coming to a conclusion on only one piece of evidence is dicey. I’m thinking how the Cheri Jo Bates case purportedly is linked to Zodiac because of desk-top writing found at the scene yet the DNA from the bloody hair strand in Ms. Bates’ hand isn’t linked (that I know of) to purported Zodiac DNA found on the stamps/envelopes/hair under the stamp, or where ever the DNA was actually found. As you can see, being an outsider, I can’t pinpoint whether there actually is Zodiac DNA or prints.

Edited to add: maybe I misread you. You actually meant two pieces of evidence, one each from two crimes, being linked … right?

You actually meant two pieces of evidence, one each from two crimes, being linked … right?

Yes Patinky, that’s what I meant.
I’ll have another go!
"What would be convincing evidence [to me] that someone was indeed the Zodiac Killer?"
"Any pieces of evidence linking one of these crimes with another. Fingerprints, footprints, bullet cartridges, hairs, fibres, photos, matchbooks, cigarette stubs…… Anything."
There.
Ah, English. Such a difficult language….

Evidence comes in a variety of items.

Writing match, not bad

Print match, strong

DNA, stronger

A combination of these things is ideal.

By the way, OWK, why do you say there are no Zodiac prints? There is a cab print in blood,that they are confident came from Zodiac.

As far as your suspect,or any other suspect, if their DNA is found on one of those Z envelopes,or behind the stamps, they would quickly jump to the front of the suspect line

When it comes to Evidence, 99 times out of 100 people involved in this case will look for any and all evidence that may implicate their suspect in the Zodiac Crimes. Nothing wrong with that, but I looked at the suspects from the opposite point of view: What evidence Exhonerates the suspects, not implicates them. "When all other possibilities have been eliminated, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth" Some bloke once said lol.

Thats how I tried looking at the Z suspects list. Investigate them as a defense Lawyer might do & try to find any reasons, claims, evidence or reports that would seem to suggest they were either not likely to be Zodiac, or just outrite could not be Zodiac.

I spent three days once arguing with someone on a forum that Arthur Allen, with all his Male Genetic Baldness going on, could not be growing and sporting a greasy fringe of hair that ‘Hung down over his forehead’. I was repeatedy met with "If he had wet his hair he could be seen to have a fringe as wet hair is darker in color and easier to see". How this is achieved on a bald mans head is still a mystery to me.

I gave up after 72 hours of back and forth arguments and aggreed that he was correct and Police should have been looking for a bald headed man with a crew cut with a possible greacy fringe growing.

My point is, ‘Evidence’ is this case to some people is secondary to their belief, and as such evidence is cherry picked (no pun intended) to fit the suspect, and not the suspect fit the evidence.

You actually meant two pieces of evidence, one each from two crimes, being linked … right?

Yes Patinky, that’s what I meant.
I’ll have another go!
"What would be convincing evidence [to me] that someone was indeed the Zodiac Killer?"
"Any pieces of evidence linking one of these crimes with another. Fingerprints, footprints, bullet cartridges, hairs, fibres, photos, matchbooks, cigarette stubs…… Anything."
There.
Ah, English. Such a difficult language….

Smithy, I don’t speak English. I speak southern.

You actually meant two pieces of evidence, one each from two crimes, being linked … right?

Yes Patinky, that’s what I meant.
I’ll have another go!
"What would be convincing evidence [to me] that someone was indeed the Zodiac Killer?"
"Any pieces of evidence linking one of these crimes with another. Fingerprints, footprints, bullet cartridges, hairs, fibres, photos, matchbooks, cigarette stubs…… Anything."
There.
Ah, English. Such a difficult language….

Smithy, I don’t speak English. I speak southern.

I like the Southern Americans. I think it’s fantastic that a group of States found life could be made easier if instead of using two words, like ‘You All’, very time consuming and unnecessary when you can just morph them into one…’Y’all’. Now theres more time to do other things! Lol. My kind of people!

WC – you’re right about the Southern states. You can use the extra time saved for a siesta. (I know I did!)
I think you’re right about the "Zodiac" arena, too, and that if you cherry-pick, you can make a case for a wide range of suspects.
The physical descriptions give plenty of scope…..

Smithy, I don’t speak English. I speak southern.

Patinky, so do I, but unfortunately not southern ‘Merkan!

Yes, fitting our suspect to the evidence is natural. But looking at this like a detective is better.
A bloody palm print. But this palm print does not match the "wet" palm print from the Napa phone booth as far as I know and what Napa LE told me.
A palm print from a suspect none the less, which matched either scene, would be convincing evidence?

Yes, fitting our suspect to the evidence is natural. But looking at this like a detective is better.
A bloody palm print. But this palm print does not match the "wet" palm print from the Napa phone booth as far as I know and what Napa LE told me.A palm print from a suspect none the less, which matched either scene, would be convincing evidence?

The moist Palm Print found on the phone was, to the best of my knowledge, deemed unusable as apparantlly the evidence Tech. who lifted the palm print did so without allowing it to properly dry out first before he attempted to lift it. This would naturally smudge any surface of the moist print and destroy the patterns that are used to identify a person.

Again, I can’t confirm that is fact, but that’s the the story with the palm print to the best of my knowledge

Yes, that’s the story. Hal Snook was the technician, and as usual he photographed the print before trying to do anything else with it – which is why the FBI reports it as useable in the reports. Another myth, this "destroyed" story. And the apology out there’s bogus, too.

OWK’s – "A palm print from a suspect none the less, which matched either scene, would be convincing evidence?"
A palm print which matched one from a crime scene would be a start, yes.

Yes, that’s the story. Hal Snook was the technician, and as usual he photographed the print before trying to do anything else with it – which is why the FBI reports it as useable in the reports. Another myth, this "destroyed" story. And the apology out there’s bogus, too.

But…how good was the photograph? Have we seen it anywhere?

Could be the actual prints were not good, but it was not realized when the photo was taken. If the photo was no good when later developed….??

Yes, fitting our suspect to the evidence is natural. But looking at this like a detective is better.
A bloody palm print. But this palm print does not match the "wet" palm print from the Napa phone booth as far as I know and what Napa LE told me.
A palm print from a suspect none the less, which matched either scene, would be convincing evidence?

That’s news to me. They are all over the map with the prints and don’t seem to know what each other has(each different jurisdiction,NAPA,SF,etc). By the way, which palm print are you saying doesnt match the phone booth palm print?