Besides the letters themselves, we should also consider the odd way in which he splits his words up,it’s very unusual, and I think we could find these habits in his every day writing. For example, he always, always, always, splits words with a GHT in them, such as NIGHT, RIGHT, LIGHT, etc, always splits them after the G. It’s a habit, its not intentional

I think this is a terrific observation, morf. I agree that even if you believe the misspellings were intentional (which I don’t), this type of characteristic is simply a habit and would almost certainly appear in his everyday handwriting. Perhaps it’s these types of tendencies that Morill recognized and felt would be repeated unconsciously? Are there others to be found?

FWIW, here’s my own guy’s version of GHT words (not quite as pronounced of some of Z’s examples):

@entropy

Thanks – yes, that would be one, or two! But the piece I have in mind is slightly different. It’s mainly about Toschi – and I think it’s later than these ones. I’ll try to dig it up – as I recall Morrill is quoted as saying more explicitly that Z wrote his letters "naturally" in this piece.

Also, I agree that morf’s point is an excellent one. Those spaces are very distinctive and clearly indicate a natural style.

PS Forgive me for asking – probably been asked before – but is there a thread on your guy, entropy? Here or elsewhere? I’m curious now.

I mean the handwritten letters of Zodiac, if written in his own free hand, should show any singular letter anomaly like a thick blotch of ink at the base of the letter ‘e’ then we should expect that this mark, blob, full stop/period, call it what you will, that when it does appear it does so consistently in the same spot. If it doesn’t, then there is something wrong with the picture because anyone writing in their own free flowing hand the letter ‘e’ will start the construction of the letter ‘e’ fom the same starting position in each and every instance.

From the experts and their opinion’s that I have either read or seen on TV on this subject handwriting, is that a person’s handwriting is similar to a fingerprint. The fingerprint is unique to each individual as is a persons writing.
We don’t choose how we write and in which style etc, it is something we develop and form while learning to read & write. I am living proof of this idea because if any of you had seen my extremely scruffy and untidy handwriting then you’d know that if I had a potential to choose to write in a different, more neat and respectable hand, I certainly would

I also remember one expert stating, I think it was on the episode of ‘MysterQuest: San Fran Slaughter’ that to hide ones own handwriting by deliberate and conscious effort to write differently is basically impossible and will not fool an expert because we can consciously think and decide that today I am going to write a letter and disguise my handwriting by changing the style and format deliberately yes, but this expert claims that in theory that sounds good, but in the practical it simply isn’t going to work because it’s not the conscious mind that controls our writing and the way we do it, but the subconscious mind. She stated that yes, we may be able to fabricate our writing to a certain extent in a letter, but not completely because you subconscious mind will automatically want to revert back to it’s natural style without you even realising it. There will always be ‘tell tale’ unique characteristics that are specific to an individual writer that even when trying to mask writing a free flowing hand will still appear in the forced and un-natural resulting letter.

If they are faked, and based on the blob’s of ink not being anywhere near consistent. I would guess at the effect was achieved using one form of other of tracing. But that is said by me without any expertise in this field at all. And I also do not claim it is more likely to be correct than any other idea.

I also agree with Morf on his very good observation of the Zodiac’s tendency to split singular words into two sections and he does seem to be extremely consistent in doing this which emphasizes the point I make about the thick ink marks on individual letters because if Zodiac is completely consistent in breaking words up into two halves, then he should be absolutely no different when forming each individual letter of the alphabet.

Unless Zodiac has split personality disorder (which scientific results have shown will usually have the different personalities having their own and unique writing style) then he’s simply not writing the letters in his own free hand unless you accept that on a Monday Zodiac constructs the letter ‘E’ by placing the pen on the paper and starting from the underside curves upwards and around to form his ”e’ and then Tuesday he decides he doesn’t want to do it like this today and want’s to construct each and every letter ‘e’ from the top and curve down and around so that he now will finish the letter ‘e’ construction at the point here today that yesterday he used as the position from which he began forming this same alphabetical letter.

If Z is the author of the Confession letter, than it demonstrates that he goes to great lengths to be untraceable, therefore I don’t believe Z’s letters reflect his true writing style. He wouldn’t have used those affectations, like the splitting of words or the misspellings, in his actual writing either. Moreover, the handwriting for the red phantom letter, for example, is very different from his other correspondences, so it shows he knows how to switch it up.

Z was a lot smarter than we give him credit for. I think he was a mastermind at deception. He has been called a sloppy killer, but I think that had more to do with his audacity, than being stupid. He was all about misleading people, and he is still doing just that.

Yes, there are unconscious traits that will "slip through" attempts to disguise writing… but give it a try. Can you make two different writing samples look different from each other?

Of course you can. People can and have different writing styles. That’s why it’s important for writing examiners to view as much writing as possible for comparison. They don’t just base it on single letter comparisons. It’s OK to do that to get an idea of a general style,as we often do here, but that’s not definitive.

In other words Zodiac has differences in his letters. He has differences in his styles, Belli compared to his ciphers, for example. But he also has many similarities between all of them.

Just the differences in style show to me that at least some of his writing is not completely natural. But I also don’t think it is intentionally disguised, or multiple people writing.

You honestly think, duckking, that Z would not attempt to disguise his handwriting? There are moments in the later parts of the letters where he probably slips back into his natural style, but I can’t see Z writing letters for the world to see and not hide his handwriting.

A lot of people on here do not want to look past the surface: He killed Bates and kidnapped Johns because he said he did; he used his natural hanwriting; he left his fingerprints all over the place; he must have left his name and phone number hidden in the ciphers; the sketches of LB and PH look similar enough (they don’t). That’s why this case remains unsolved.

Why is it so hard to admit that Z was an expert at covering his tracks, leaving false clues, and leading LE to red herrings?

The letters from Zodiac that I like to look at closely for Zodiac’s real writing, are the little list letter, and the Badlands letter. Also, the writing on Hartnell’s door.

The little list letter is way too long, and would be much harder for zodiac,if he was disguising his writing, to consistently duplicate his disguises. The Badlands letter, we have to assume, he didnt think would be even connected to him, so he likely did not disguise it. The car door is also important, since Z had just committed what he thought was a double murder, and would likely want to get out fast, so taking time to disguise the writing is unlikely.

@entropy

Thanks – yes, that would be one, or two! But the piece I have in mind is slightly different. It’s mainly about Toschi – and I think it’s later than these ones. I’ll try to dig it up – as I recall Morrill is quoted as saying more explicitly that Z wrote his letters "naturally" in this piece.

Also, I agree that morf’s point is an excellent one. Those spaces are very distinctive and clearly indicate a natural style.

PS Forgive me for asking – probably been asked before – but is there a thread on your guy, entropy? Here or elsewhere? I’m curious now.

As I remember it Morrill said the exact opposite; that Z did NOT write in his natural handwriting.

I´ll try to find that newsreport, and I´ll post it when/if I find it.

If Z is the author of the Confession letter, than it demonstrates that he goes to great lengths to be untraceable, therefore I don’t believe Z’s letters reflect his true writing style. He wouldn’t have used those affectations, like the splitting of words or the misspellings, in his actual writing either. Moreover, the handwriting for the red phantom letter, for example, is very different from his other correspondences, so it shows he knows how to switch it up.

Z was a lot smarter than we give him credit for. I think he was a mastermind at deception. He has been called a sloppy killer, but I think that had more to do with his audacity, than being stupid. He was all about misleading people, and he is still doing just that.

IMO you are totaly SPOT ON !!! couldn´t agree more:)

To the naked eye his writing and its style looks natural. It is consistent and doesn’t appear to have any signs of being written in a non natural way with attempts to mask the style of it and the only thing that seem to hint at it being written in forced, unnatural and deceptive way is the ink marks in and on specific letters appearing in different places.

For me, there is a few examples of Z starting a letter by trying to be extra neat and tidy, and then becoming lazy and reverting back to his natural style as the letters length increases. Zodiac’s customary opening announcement ‘This is the Zodiac Speaking’, aswel as the first few lines, show a conscious effort on his part to write very neatly and methodically with his letter’s in each of the words standing vertically on their respected lines. But as the author continues further down the page he seems to do what I pointed out in the pervious post, revert back to his more natural style and after only a few lines the words go from being made up of very neat vertically standing Consonant’s & Vowels to the far more recognisable and natural style of Zodiac that sees them now leaning and slanting to the right and the words become slightly less neat as the authors attention to detail and neatness starts to wean. Case and point below…

As we see, he starts by informing the recipient that ‘This is the Zodiac Speaking’ in a very neat line of vertical letters. By the time he’s got to the the fourth line he’s starting to find this extra attention to neatness a burden, and by line 5 the his writing now starts to look more like writing of The Zodiac that we know and are used to reading. The lean or slant as though each individual letter in each word is about to fall into the letter to its immediate right causing a domino effect has slowly edged its way back to the forefront one again.
I suppose it’s down to what the expert said happens in forcing your writing, you just simply revert to the what feels natural and doesn’t require any specific conscious and deliberate extra effort.

@entropy

Thanks – yes, that would be one, or two! But the piece I have in mind is slightly different. It’s mainly about Toschi – and I think it’s later than these ones. I’ll try to dig it up – as I recall Morrill is quoted as saying more explicitly that Z wrote his letters "naturally" in this piece.

Also, I agree that morf’s point is an excellent one. Those spaces are very distinctive and clearly indicate a natural style.

PS Forgive me for asking – probably been asked before – but is there a thread on your guy, entropy? Here or elsewhere? I’m curious now.

As I remember it Morrill said the exact opposite; that Z did NOT write in his natural handwriting.

I´ll try to find that newsreport, and I´ll post it when/if I find it.

I am not saying that what I am about to say, or ask rather, is in any way true or suggesting it happened so i’ll pose it as a question. Does anyone think that Morrill would maybe just confirm or discount a certain letter if he knew that is what the SPPD were claiming or wanted to hear? I mean an example then would be the "My Name Is’ letter he authenticates as from Zodiacs own hand and genuine because the police say they believe it is from the killer. Then comes The ‘I am back with you’ communication of which the Law Enforcement Community make no secret of their opinion that it is not authentic and is in fact a forgery and, surprise surprise, Morrill comes out himself stating he believes this letter to be non authentic and in essence, a hoax.
I don’t know anything about the man or his background in cases involving Law Enforcement, if he has any that is, so genuinely asking that as a question and not offering it as a statement of suspicion.

WC, Morril was the one who matched the Bates material and it’s not like the RPD was hot on him pushing for Zodiac. Wasn’t he about ready to retire? I don’t really see what he would have to gain by giving an opinion other than his own.

You honestly think, duckking, that Z would not attempt to disguise his handwriting? There are moments in the later parts of the letters where he probably slips back into his natural style, but I can’t see Z writing letters for the world to see and not hide his handwriting.

A lot of people on here do not want to look past the surface: He killed Bates and kidnapped Johns because he said he did; he used his natural hanwriting; he left his fingerprints all over the place; he must have left his name and phone number hidden in the ciphers; the sketches of LB and PH look similar enough (they don’t). That’s why this case remains unsolved.

Why is it so hard to admit that Z was an expert at covering his tracks, leaving false clues, and leading LE to red herrings?

Prior to studying the Zodiac case when have you ever heard about disguised handwriting? I did a google search for the phrase and the first four pages were just academic papers and services for writing examiners. The only criminal cases mentioned were one link to the Jon Benet Ramsey case and two for Zodiac!

No, I don’t think outside of the bates letters and maybe some of the last "non zodiac" letters he put any real effort into disguising his writing. Why would he? The guy is going around stabbing people in broad daylight, shooting someone on the street corner of a nice neighborhood and walking past the cops, and he’s supposed to be worried his handwriting will get him caught? The only way to match his handwriting would be after he was already arrested for something else connecting him to the Zodiac crimes , which would have probably been much more important than the letters. Same goes for fingerprints, if his prints weren’t on file, he doesn’t need to worry about them being matched.

It reminds me of the BTK killer who sent in a tape recording of his non disguised voice and they played it on the news. His wife heard it and said to him, "That sounds just like you." and they laughed about it and she immediacy dismissed it and forgot.

You really think some guy who is stupid and reckless as the Zodiac was in the way he committed his crimes, is going around leaving all these fake clues like some fictional villain? You know a better way to get away with a crime? Just don’t leave clues in the first place.

The only people who think he left fake clues are the ones who don’t like the fact that the clues don’t match their preferred suspect. They don’t see the lack of logic for why he was able to fake enough evidence so that it would not match him, but failed to avoid becoming a suspect and having that evidence compared against him by police in the first place. Again, a really smart guy would not do anything to become a suspect and then he’d have no problems.

@entropy

Thanks – yes, that would be one, or two! But the piece I have in mind is slightly different. It’s mainly about Toschi – and I think it’s later than these ones. I’ll try to dig it up – as I recall Morrill is quoted as saying more explicitly that Z wrote his letters "naturally" in this piece.

Also, I agree that morf’s point is an excellent one. Those spaces are very distinctive and clearly indicate a natural style.

PS Forgive me for asking – probably been asked before – but is there a thread on your guy, entropy? Here or elsewhere? I’m curious now.

As I remember it Morrill said the exact opposite; that Z did NOT write in his natural handwriting.

I´ll try to find that newsreport, and I´ll post it when/if I find it.

I believe this was Morrill’s opinion about the Bates letters, which don’t look like anybody’s natural handwriting, rather than the letters as a whole but I can’t provide confirmation of that. These look like they might have been written with a non-dominant hand, IMO, to disguise handwriting. For the most part, I believe that most of the letters represent Z’s natural handwriting and vary depending on his state of mind at the time. The Badlands and Red Phantom letters are an enigma and I’m not totally convinced they were penned by Z.

I know one thing, the letters like the. ‘Little list’ are way too long in length for me to think z write that with anything other than his every day writing hand. I think the only things he may have done to hide his writing may be to lean the paper at an odd angle or to write messy, but I’m convinced we are looking at what is close to his normal writing