There is a consistent and very clear pattern that has its roots in the 1960s that shows that the Z letters cannot be depended upon for DNA to close the case. The slavish dependence of the detectives on this evidence to do their job for them is and was disastrous for the case.

Who would have guessed that in the 1960s/70s SFPD’s lab was testing for the presence of saliva–and not finding it? People will argue that there are "traces" of saliva on the letters that prove they were licked, but you cannot "half-lick" or "quarter-lick" something. It is either slathered in cells and saliva, like the forgeries, or it isn’t. (And speaking of the forgeries, thank God we have them because they serve as the "control" in the experiment that proves that the saliva on the true Z letters did not simply "degrade" over time. Since the forgeries are from essentially the same era as the real letters, the fact that they are loaded with saliva means that the true letters should also be loaded with cells and saliva–if they had been licked in the first place!)

The notion that the letters were not licked is further bolstered by the fact that, unlike the forgeries, the individual Z letters do not on their own yield DNA. Such would be expected to be the case if they had been licked, since that is the way it is for the two forged letters. The fact that samples from multiple "true Z letters" had to be combined in 2002 indirectly demonstrates the lack of cells on these letters.

The evidence is entirely consistent and has a long historical tail that continues into 2002, when the lab apparently informed the Inspectors that in the opinion of the lab the letters were not licked. Then the three letters "magically" appear on the ABC show and are analyzed in 2007 and the results are that no DNA could be recovered from them, either, if we can take the DOJ at its word. The end of the trail came last April, when an unnamed offical from SFPD admitted that the DNA "may not be reliable" due to the aforementioned combining of samples and possible contamination of that combined sample with exogenous DNA.

Unreliable evidence, even DNA, cannot reliably rule people out.

Mike

The biggest fallacy is the notion put forth so naively by Kelly Carroll that in order for Z to have avoided licking his stamps and envelopes in 1969, he would somehow have had to predict the coming of DNA evidence years in the future. That is the biggest piece of rubbish going!

You will note that the Z letters were being tested by the lab for the presence of saliva as far back as the 1960s. This absolutely floored me, since I could not conceive of that test being done so long ago. The important thing to remember is this: SFPD’s lab also could not predict that coming of DNA years in the future!

So why were they testing the letters for saliva? Obviously it was not for the fun of it. They tested them because at that time there was saliva testing for blood type and medications (something that was being used in the thoroughbred horse racing industry for years prior to 1969 for post-race drug testing) that they clearly wanted to apply to the letters.

And if the lab knew about this type of testing, then Z could also have known about it. It is not rocket science to figure this stuff out but sometimes I get the impression that it is…because DNA is never, ever wrong. By its very nature, it intimidates people and apparently makes them stop thinking critically. But when it comes from questionable evidence DNA can very well be as misleading as anything else.

Mike

Mike, I’d be interested to know how much faith you have in the print evidence, given the fact that you aren’t sold on there being any Zodiac DNA.

Hi-

Not a lot in the cab prints based on my previous interactions with law enforcement there but I don’t know a lot about Napa and their phone booth.

Mike

I think any suspects should be compared to any and all prints on file in the zodiac case

How do you feel Mike about the so called hair found under one of the stamps on the Zodiac letters?
Could that be a link to a suspect? Does anyone know if they compared that hair to the hairs recovered from
the Cheri Jo Bate’s murder?

Hi-

Not a lot in the cab prints based on my previous interactions with law enforcement there but I don’t know a lot about Napa and their phone booth.

Mike

What about the prints on the letters? I feel that those are of the most value.

Hi-

Well, it is not a "so-called hair." It is an actual piece of hair, probably from an arm or limb. I did a lot of research on this hair in about 2003 and learned it was probably not from a beard or moustache (as was most likely scenario in 2003 based on the fact that it presumably came from someone licking a stamp, a scenario that is not as likely in 2013 since we know Z didn’t lick his stamps). Since it has no root bulb, it is not suitable for nuclear DNA analysis and there is probably just not enough of it to be analyzed for mt-DNA. After all, they will only have one shot to burn it up, so they have to be sure they can get enough material for the analysis or it will be lost forever.

Mike

Ok here’s an obvious question…

The police allege that they recovered a partial print (in blood) from Paul Stine’s Cab. The Question i have is, has this print (albeit partial) been entered into the Nationwide AFIS (Automated Fingerprint Identification System)?

I asked this same question regarding the alleged Partial DNA profile that LE claim was recovered from one of Zodiac’s letters. I wondered if that Partial DNA profile was entered into the National DNA Data Base because Zodiac himself need not be on file, if a close relative was, the system would recognise that. But recently it’s been stated by many people that no such DNA profile exists now. I have heard two versions of this DNA story, the first is that there is no DNA profile available now because there simply never was DNA discovered on any letter (even though LE publically stated that they had used this, along with the print evidence, to compare to Arthur Allen with Negative results.) The second version I have heard is that they did once have a Partial DNA sample/profile, but it was destroyed in the process of testing it against Art Allen.

I have no idea which, if any, version of the story is correct. Can anyone state categorically, that one of the above is true and if none are, what the alternative truth is? (And please, with all respect intended, I am not looking for anyones opinion or belief that A or B is true, but rather that facts and how it is you came across these facts/evidence.)

Thanks.

Ok here’s an obvious question…

The police allege that they recovered a partial print (in blood) from Paul Stine’s Cab. The Question i have is, has this print (albeit partial) been entered into the Nationwide AFIS (Automated Fingerprint Identification System)?

Typically the police do not publicly announce what investigative steps they take. But I think all the prints recovered in the Zodiac case would have been entered in AFIS. I can think of no reason why they would not have been entered. Detectives and forensics men on the Zodiac case have told me "It is unknown if any real Zodiac prints exist" and that they "would not rule out an otherwise good suspect soley on the basis of a non-match to prints recovered in the case."

I asked this same question regarding the alleged Partial DNA profile that LE claim was recovered from one of Zodiac’s letters. I wondered if that Partial DNA profile was entered into the National DNA Data Base because Zodiac himself need not be on file, if a close relative was, the system would recognise that.

Convicted offenders subject by law to DNA collection have 13 markers put into the FBI CODIS nationwide registry. Forensic profiles are DNA from an unknown person found at a crime scene, for example, semen from a rape, blood from a murder, touch DNA from a victim’s clothes, etc. But such crime scene DNA must have at least 10 markers to be entered into CODIS. The DNA that was recovered from the stamp on a confirmed Zodiac letter only had 4 markers. Thus it was not ever entered into CODIS.

But recently it’s been stated by many people that no such DNA profile exists now. I have heard two versions of this DNA story, the first is that there is no DNA profile available now because there simply never was DNA discovered on any letter (even though LE publically stated that they had used this, along with the print evidence, to compare to Arthur Allen with Negative results.) The second version I have heard is that they did once have a Partial DNA sample/profile, but it was destroyed in the process of testing it against Art Allen.

I have no idea which, if any, version of the story is correct. Can anyone state categorically, that one of the above is true and if none are, what the alternative truth is? (And please, with all respect intended, I am not looking for anyones opinion or belief that A or B is true, but rather that facts and how it is you came across these facts/evidence.)

Thanks.

The "truth" is a bit muddy because no public announcements have been made. We as the public do not know all the facts and we cannot see the evidence. This is what I can factually relate.

From 2011:

Many of you know that for a long time I have been trying to get a comparison between the DNA of the California Couples Killer known as the East Area Rapist/Original Night Stalker (EAR/ONS) and the California Couples Killer known as The Zodiac.

It has long been known that the SFPD got 4 markers of DNA off a stamp from a confirmed Zodiac letter. See:

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=132040&page=1

At the time, SFPD and Dr. Holt seemed very confident that this DNA was likely from the Zodiac. They used it to exclude suspects such as Allen.

Last year a very well respected law enforcement forensics officer told me it was doubtful if this was real Zodiac DNA, because of very serious issues with how the letters were stored and possible contamination. Back in the 1970’s, police and reporters handled these letters without gloves, and some were found in a detectives home garage. Still, he thought it COULD be real DNA from the Zodiac.

Well a detective on the EAR/ONS case finally followed through, and asked SFPD for the report on the possible Zodiac DNA, so that he could compare it to the EAR/ONS DNA.

He was told the SFPD has "NO ZODIAC DNA PROFILE." That there is nothing they can send to compare to.

He was told "one time in the past one of their criminalists did incorrectly give that impression to the media during a TV show. "

But they currently have no confidence that the DNA they recovered is actually from the Zodiac.

Damn! Disappointing!

That is both a surprise and a disappointment!

So that is where it stands as of right now. I will let you know if I hear anything else. I am open to questions, comments or ideas.

Maybe this is a lie from the SFPD? Maybe they want the comparisons to be secret? Maybe something else is going on here? Maybe they just don’t want to share the DNA?

Any of those could possibly be true, but given that SFPD told law enforcement they have no valid Zodiac DNA, that is what I am inclined to believe is the truth.

Q: "Your source has been misinformed by someone who is misinformed.

SFPD sent all such material to the DOJ back in early 2007.

A partial DNA profile does exist and SFPD used it to compare to several suspects. That is a fact."

AK WILKS: I agree, the four markers, the partial profile does exist, and in the past SFPD had confidence in it, and compared it to Allen, Mr. X and other suspects.

What I am saying is that a detective told me that the SFPD told him they no longer consider that 4 marker partial profile to be valid. They don’t think it is likely from the real Zodiac.

I asked the detective to ask them to send it anyway, so he can do the comparison.

I am not sure what is going on here, maybe SFPD is telling a lie, or maybe they don’t want the comparison done, or maybe this a smokescreen for an unknown higher purpose.

But this detective is telling me that current SFPD has no confidence in the 4 marker partial profile.

The issue is confusing, I tried to be clear as I could in my post.

The SFPD would still have a paper with the 4 marker DNA results on it, even though they sent the actual stamps and DNA back to the Cal DOJ.

I have asked the detective to ask SFPD to send the results on paper to him.

I will also let him know that Cal DOJ has the actual evidence. If SFPD still declines to send the paper report, I will advise him to contact Cal DOJ.

Regardless of the fact that SFPD apparently has no confidence in the 4 marker profile, I would still like it to be compared.

I would also would very much like the EAR/ONS DNA to be compared to the Bates mtDNA.

For whatever reason, SFPD is now telling a law enforcement officer they have no confidence in the 4 marker profile. This is disappointing. Mike Rodelli told me he had heard this from SFPD before, and told me this last year [2010]. I disagreed with him then because a detective told me he had doubts about the DNA but thought it could still be real. Now the truth seems closer to what Mike Rodelli was saying, not what I was saying, because a source in law enforcement that I trust tells me SFPD told him they had no confidence in the DNA.

I have spent hundreds of hours on this, so it is a major disappointment. I spent YEARS working on this case with the expectation that the Holy Grail of Zodiac DNA would be compared to my POI and to DNA from EAR/ONS.

I still asked him to try to do the comparison, as SFPD may be wrong.

And perhaps someone is playing a game here or laying a smokescreen for unknown reasons.

And I think the Bates mtDNA is the most likely to be from the Zodiac, and I now asking some in law enforcement to compare to that mtDNA.

That is what I personally know.

Q: "So Dr. Holt, Inspectors Maloney and Carroll, "Primetime Thursday," "Cold Case Files" and the Chronicle reporter covering Mr. X all lied?"

AK WILKS: No.

It appears that at that time, Dr. Holt and the SFPD honestly believed that the 4 markers were likely from the Zodiac.

As of 2011, it appears the SFPD is saying they do not have confidence that the 4 marker DNA profile really is from the Zodiac.

I don’t know why they have changed. It could be further tests showed more contamination. It could be they found a lab tech, detective or reporter who has those 4 markers, thus meaning it is likely they were the cause of the DNA not Zodiac.

It could be any number of things. It could just be new personnel, a new evaluation, new and better technology and/or just a new opinion.

There is a small chance that this is a smoke screen, that something is going on they don’t want publicity about. Police do put out false info at times.

But everything I know indicates to me that my source is honest, and I do not think SFPD would lie to a homicide detective. Given the horrible violations of protocol we know existed with the handling and storage of the letters and envelopes, I accept that SFPD correctly has no confidence that they have real Zodiac DNA.

Thank you for that detailed answer AK.

While I understand the police may feel the need to keep certain things quiet, like finger prints entered into AFIS, for a fairly recent case, I don’ see why they’d want to keep that quiet from a 1969 case. Maybe it’s just a case of nobody has asked, rather than the SFPD not wanting to disclose that info? Who knows?

Also, I wasn’t aware that the partial profile only had Four markers, and that is below the accepted number to be entered into AFIS. However, regarding the two schools of thought ‘It is likely Zodiac’s DNA vs It isn’t likely to be Zodiac’s DNA’, I see where the latter argument is coming from by stating the letters have been handled without care and contamination may have occured…to an extent. If the DNA found was obtained, lets say, on a flake of skin in an envelope, then i’d agree, not worth considering. But, the fact that the Stamp was afixed, sealed practically air tight, to the envelope, would in and of itself guard any DNA under it from cross contamination. Secondly, technology these days can determine where the DNA was found, and what the contributing agent was, ie, saliva, skin, blood, hair etc etc. If the Partial Profile was lifted after they pried/steamed the stamp off the envelope, and the DNA profile can be shown to have been found on the underside of he stamp (that has remained air tight and sealed to the envelope), and that the DNA was contributed by means of saliva, then in my humble opinion, the odds of the sample being contaminated by someone else is almost Zero because if that were the case, then we’d have to believe that someone else handled the letters, took the stamp off of the envelope, and then themselves licked the stamp/envelope to leave their own DNA in saliva on Zodiac’s envelope.

I mean even if the letters had been passed around 50 people, unless one of them 50 peole licked the envelope/stamp, then the DNA has to have come from the sender of the original letter or at least an associate of his (not contamination at a later date). Does that sound plausable?

If LE doesn’t consider the DNA and prints as most likely being from the Zodiac, does that mean that they still consider ALA to be a viable Z suspect? It seems that they considered him the "best" suspect prior to being ruled out by those things, so if those things do not rule one out, doesn’t that mean we should consider him back in at the top? It also seems that most people in the Z community do not consider him as a viable suspect, but why not if not for the DNA and prints?

WC – No as I understand the procedures used back then were cutting away the stamp and envelope flap then it would be emersed in solution, so that both the FRONT and BACK of the stamp or envelope flap would be in the solution, and any DNA recovered could have come from the front or back. Think about who could have touched the front of the stamp or flap. Maybe Zodiac’s family members, the postman, the mail sorters, the newspaper staff, the police, detectives, reporters, friends and family of police when they were taken home and stored in a garage, lab techs, etc., etc. People touch their mouth and nose and get their DNA on the hands.

You and everyone else are free to believe what you want. There has been no public announcement and we have not seem the actual old lab reports indicating probable real Zodiac DNA or the new reports saying no real Zodiac DNA. I can only relate what a homicide detective told me that SFPD told him. This confirms what Mike Rodelli says he was told.

Also, on all the confirmed real Zodiac letters there was either no amylase or almost no amylase found on the stamps or flaps. This indicated that no saliva was likely ever present on the stamps or flaps, leading to the probable conclusion that Zodiac never licked them. He probably used a sponge or water. On the fake Zodiac letter there was amylase indicating saliva.

If LE doesn’t consider the DNA and prints as most likely being from the Zodiac, does that mean that they still consider ALA to be a viable Z suspect? It seems that they considered him the "best" suspect prior to being ruled out by those things, so if those things do not rule one out, doesn’t that mean we should consider him back in at the top? It also seems that most people in the Z community do not consider him as a viable suspect, but why not if not for the DNA and prints?

The detectives I talked to did not consider Allen a viable suspect.

I did NOT talk to anyone from Vallejo so maybe they feel differently. The search warrants against Allen were obtained even after the non-match on prints.

IMO Allen is ruled out by being a total non-match on handwriting as determined by Morrill and others, by weighing much more than the best descriptions (Fouke said Allen was 100 pounds heavier than the man he saw, and he would be 80 pounds heavier than the Mageau and Johns estimate of weight), a non-match on MO as Allen did sexual crimes against children with no violence while Zodiac did violent crimes against adults with no explicit sexual element, because Allen looked nothing like the SF sketch and for other reasons.