No forensic technique has taken more hits than handwriting analysis. In one particularly devastating federal ruling, United States v. Saelee (2001), the court noted that forensic handwriting analysis techniques had seldom been tested, and that what testing had been done "raises serious questions about the reliability of methods currently in use." The experts were frequently wrong–in one test "the true positive accuracy rate of laypersons was the same as that of handwriting examiners; both groups were correct 52 percent of the time." The most basic principles of handwriting analysis–for example, that everyone’s handwriting is unique–had never been demonstrated. "The technique of comparing known writings with questioned documents appears to be entirely subjective and entirely lacking in controlling standards," the court wrote. Testimony by the government’s handwriting expert was ruled inadmissible.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea … it-science

To me the most problematic part is this: The fact that the most basic premise of the thing, that "everyone’s handwriting is unique" has "never been demonstrated".

And then there’s the fact that handwriting analysis is – and seemingly must be – largely subjective. The latter doesn’t mean that it’s a matter of sheer, personal opinion – of course – but it’s highly problematic nonetheless. And both peer reviewing and anything resembling fixed standards were clearly even less prevalent in the late 60s/early 70s than they are now.

A bit depressing, all in all.

I disagree with the premise that handwriting analysis is somehow flawed. It’s just not a hard science. Would you argue that police interrogation of a suspect should NEVER be used in court because it’s entirely subjective and they don’t hook people up to an MRI machine that reads their brainwaves to determine their emotional responses?

This is more of the CSI effect. Criminal law is based on "reasonable" justification, not on scientific proofs. Even within the realm of science very few things are held as proven, or laws. Most things are just theories because they cannot be widely tested, but they are accepted because the available testing shows a positive statistically correlating trend.

The reason that it’s never been proven that everyone has unique handwriting is because everyone’s handwriting has not been compared to each other. It also has not been proven for the same reason that everyone has a unique fingerprint. Would you dismiss that too from courtroom testimony? Maybe it’s theoretically possible that a guy who lived in 3rd century China has the same fingerprint as our suspect in California ’78 and the one found at the crime scene. Is that reasonable doubt as to his guilt?

As far as I know it goes both ways: Two people have never been proven to have identical handwriting, so we are going to go ahead and assume that the two that match up are from the same guy.

A trial is also usually based on more than a single piece of evidence. Handwriting that looks like a suspects, in addition to other evidence builds a case that he is probably guilty. handwriting that doesn’t look anything like his probably isn’t. That’s all there is to it.

Hm. I don’t know, to be honest. I don’t dismiss handwriting analysis as being a potentially very helpful tool. I don’t think you can legitimately compare it to either interrogation or fingerprints, though. The questions which have been raised in later years seem to be based on much more than the simple fact that handwriting analysis isn’t hard science. The discipline seems to have lacked certain fundamental scientific standards – making it, in a word, somewhat unaccountable. The same is not true for fingerprints – the analysis of which is far less a matter of subjective opinion and much easier to test against set standards. The latter could be said for interrogation too – there are, and have been for a long time, strict standards which must be adhered to if results are to be deemed valid (and admissible as evidence).

The concept of paradigms springs to mind – which is frankly quite worrying in this context. Handwriting analysis was clearly held in higher esteem when the Zodiac case was fresh. To the extent that the California DOJ considered it the BEST method for excluding suspects in the Z case in the early 70s. That is a very different proposal to including it as a supporting element, alongside "heavier" forms of evidence. I have no issue with the latter – and I stress that I don’t consider it to be an inherently dubious art: It obviously has its uses.

Looking at some of the oddities and discrepancies in the Z case, though – and considering how much stock LE seemingly put in it back then – I can’t help but scratch my head a bit. That’s all.

I feel the same as Norse. When Morrill makes statements such as "have to" or "the writer must" he is using absolutes. And that’s not a good thing in the context of handwriting. Nor profiling. Even profilers will say that its an art, not always 100 percent correct. I put handwriting in the same but lesser realm as profiling. Profiling has proven its usefulness tenfold, but it isn’t always correct. I believe the FBI has a standard disclaimer in profiling that says you should never dismiss a suspect who doesn’t fit the profile perfectly, and I think its frankly horrifying that s many suspects were dismissed using a tool that is not an exact science. I believe that they thought the Green River killer was unmarried- and lo and behold, he wasn’t. If they had tossed out all the suspects who weren’t married, we would still be talking about the Green River killer in the same breath as Jack the Ripper.
I think they messed up horribly when they started dumping people off the suspect list because their handwriting didn’t match, or worse, "the guy didn’t look like a killer". Thats holding handwriting to a standard it can simply never uphold. And I don’t think it was meant to. Its a tool among others, but it isn’t a perfect one.

I remember watching a doc about a case where the DNA that came from a murder and rape victim from the sixties matched a kid who hadn’t even been BORN yet. He was something like ten at the time of testing, and this murder had happened decades before his birth. Apparently it was a foul up at the lab, but it always makes me wonder about when they tested ALA. Apparently the first test came up positive. They looked at it again, and it came up negative. I REALLY hope they made DAMN sure it didn’t match, and if they didn’t, you can add that to the pile of depressing tidbits that might render this case wholly unsolvable.

I put handwriting analysis in the same boat as polygraph testing. It’s an added tool, but won’t solve the case. When it come to handwriting analysis, they should probably stick with check forging…not murder. We’d have 20 Zodiac’s if we took the word of all the "pros".

Disregarding the status of handwriting analysis and its merits as such for now, I guess I would say that my main concern with the Z letters is that he might have produced anything but natural printing. Feel free to shoot me completely down on that – I’m not even close to being informed enough on the subject, so what I offer is pure armchair stuff. But to me, based on what I’ve been able to learn since I took an interest in the case, I have now come to suspect that Z was faking it to a very large degree.

From the very beginning I was struck by the oddly generic appearance of his writing. I say oddly, because while it strikes me as generic (many people print in a similar fashion, hence the general similarity between Z’s style and that of countless suspects and non-suspects from my own grandfather (whose printing on an old birthday card I found the other day looks damn close to Z!) to Bob Dylan), it also strikes me as odd. The slant appears odd, as does the formatting. The spaces between words and within words in particular. Also the way the body of text often looks squeezed together on the page it’s printed on.

A while ago someone mentioned the slant and suggested that Z was used to writing on a clipboard. I sometimes wonder if the "projector" theory doesn’t hold some merit. Not in the exact form Graysmith suggests – but something along those lines. In the past people have suggested that Z might have used something like a pantograph. There’s the curious fact that the "rush to editor" text on two of the three envelopes he used to mail his three part cipher appears to be identical. Take a look at this if you haven’t already. It looks undeniably as though some form of tracing or copying technique has been used.

I seem to recall that noted Z expert Ed Neil suggested at one point that Z may have used a copy n’ paste technique combined with something like a pantograph or a polygraph: He may have prepared individual letters, words, even parts of sentences using a basic copy n’ paste method, ending up with a wealth of source material he then used as so many matrices for reproduction through the use of a pantograph (or a similar device). The latter would have allowed him to produce a finished text which was either smaller or bigger than the source – which would have further distorted things.

I don’t think Ed reached any conclusions regarding this, it was perhaps more of a vague idea – but I think he may have been on to something. I’m sure there are problems with such a theory, off the top of my head: Would the method allow for the consistency of style and flow which apparently runs through the core of the Z letters which Morrill confirmed? What about pen pressure? Wouldn’t Morrill have smelled a rat if the pressure was too even throughout (which it would have been, I think, if Z used a pantograph or a similar device)?

Then again – Z could have been partly using such a device and partly a different approach. His more "manic" writing does not immediately seem to fit the pantograph theory. The odd spacing, however, which looks strikingly consistent – does seem to fit. And then there’s the slant. It IS reminiscent of the slant you’d expect if the text was written on a clipboard (with the writer standing or even moving whilst writing). It is also consistent with the writer tracing letters on a "matrix board" of some kind, in order to produce a finished letter using the pantograph method.

Well, take it for what it is – speculation on my part, nothing more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantograph

Hey Norse…we’re all speculating.

I agree it is probably a mixture of different techniques. Since he was asking for his letters to be published, I don’t think he would use the same handwriting he used to write Mom or his employer.

Agreed!

Another thing I’ve become more or less convinced of is that Z didn’t fancy being caught. At least not consciously or actively. I think the cat and mouse aspect of it appealed to him. Disguises, fake clews, mixing and matching as far as MO is concerned – I tend to think this was part and parcel of the "fun" for him. I see him as strangely juvenile in this sense – someone who got a kick out of using methods he had read about, perhaps in comic books, detective magazines, pulp fiction, etc.

More speculation! But I guess you’re right, Tahoe – it’s pretty much all we can do at this point, speculate, that is.

I put handwriting analysis in the same boat as polygraph testing. It’s an added tool, but won’t solve the case. When it come to handwriting analysis, they should probably stick with check forging…not murder. We’d have 20 Zodiac’s if we took the word of all the "pros".

Yeah, like I said before if you look at the FBI files you see loads of handwriting that (at cursory glance) looks like Z. And its the agents’ handwriting!

And I don’t know what the averages are but generally, if I look at the handwriting of most men I have known, its sort of a scrawl. Obviously Z had good handwriting- compared to your average male (sorry guys, not hating on you, its just my observation) which I think shows a background in drafting or surveying. I took a couple semesters of hardcore surveying classes- mostly trig- and in filling out those plats you have to have clear handwriting. I have clear handwriting but some of my classmates didn’t, and it was beaten into them- YOU MUST WRITE LEGIBLY. They were told to practice their handwriting, its terribly important especially since you will be writing in the field and others must be able to reference it later.

Norse, I have to disagree that the letters appear to be faked. I think that that would have betrayed itself earlier on, been something demonstrable. I am fairly certain that that would have been something easy to catch by a graphologist or a documents expert.

For one thing we already know what pen he wrote with- a Papermate Flair. I just bought a box myself. That’s the kind of nerd I am.
But its a felt tip pen, and I think you would have found far more "soaking" of the pen into the paper if he was tracing. Like Tahoe said, handwriting analysis is most useful in terms of forged checks, and oftentimes forged checks are traced. This is easily seen in the pen pressure and the soaking of the ink, especially in a pen that is WET like a felt tip pen (not an ink pen). When you write naturally, the pressure varies. If you are tracing, it would not vary so much, as you are writing more slowly to adhere to the formations you are tracing. I think that Z wrote with his natural RIGHT hand, and that he was ambidextrous. I am looking more into this because its the best explanation all round for why his handwriting couldn’t be hung on anyone. Occam’s razor. Its the simplest and I think best explanation, instead of jumping through mental hoops imaging someone else writing them, overhead projector, and so on. After all, he could have just written COMPLETELY generically, as he wrote the codes. He could have written all of his letters like he wrote the Melvin Belli letter (the "please help me" one).But he didn’t. Why? Because he knew they would never test his right hand, as he was left handed. Clearly he was righthanded- the rightward slant. Sure, he could have written some letters on a clipboard, but how does that explain the downward slant on the LB car door?

Its also interesting to speculate that he could have, as you do in drafting class, taped the letter down while he wrote. You take a piece of paper and line it up with the T square and then tape it down before drawing on it further. He could have done that, which would have protected the edges of the letter from fingerprints.

Hey TMM, I’m not picking on you – your opinions as good as mine or anyone else’s, but you’re confusing me.

Norse, I have to disagree that the letters appear to be faked. I think that that would have betrayed itself earlier on, been something demonstrable. I am fairly certain that that would have been something easy to catch by a graphologist or a documents expert.

A little searching on the net a while back found me this: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwester … ntext=jclc and it’s all you need to see that several of the things that appear in the letters are text-book "diguise" techiniques which should have been – and probably were – recognised as such by document examiners, immediately. Elements of the letters certainly seemd to be "faked" – ie they are unnatural to the writer.
And it’s very obvious.
Further, I’d suggest that the letters provocatively and deliberately contain "disguise" techniques intended to be recognised by law enforcement.
There’s a list of about 12 "disguise" attributes in all the text books to this day. It’s worth finding them and thinking about them in respect to the letters.

"Re: For one thing we already know what pen he wrote with- a Papermate Flair."
We do? I don’t recall anyone ever definitely saying so. Anyone in authority who has access to the letters, that is. Can you quote someone who has? Please God this isn’t ruddy GS again.
Wiki tells us (and it’s right about everything all the time, of course) that "In the 1960s, the fibre or felt-tipped pen was invented by Yukio Horie of the Tokyo Stationery Company, Japan. Papermate’s Flair was among the first felt-tip pens to hit the U.S. market in the 1960s, and it has been the leader ever since."
So maybe you’re right. But is there a definitive and educated LE opinion about it out there somewhere?

Re: "I think you would have found far more "soaking" of the pen into the paper if he was tracing."
You do? I don’t know. I know the letters have been subject to ninyhdrin tests, which hasn’t helped us philosophise (we’re speculating right?) about stuff.
Personally I certainly think the "overheard projector" stuff is absurd. GS came up with that, I DO know.
That ’78 letter certainly does look like it was made up of old spare parts from earlier letters. Hmmm.

Re: "I think that Z wrote with his natural RIGHT hand, and that he was ambidextrous."
Wait a second – is this just opinion or do you have some qualifications as a document examiner? The FBI have never said this – or anything like it. No-one else has either that I can yet find.
Mr Horan was shot down here:
http://www.amazon.com/handwriting-not-f … nk20248-20
– by a full time DE(?) called Wakshull when suggesting left or right-handed attributes can be gleaned from the letters. Who’s right? I don’t know.

re: "Occam’s razor. Its the simplest and I think best explanation."
Occam’s Ruddy Razor. I would rather have facts than guesses or probablities. I bet you would too. But anyhow, here’s the ultimate conusion for me "…..he knew they would never test his right hand, as he was left handed. Clearly he was righthanded- the rightward slant."
Nope, I’m lost. I know GS came up with – and stressed – the "Leigh Allen was ambidextrous and that’s why his handwriting didn’t match" stuff, but hey, he had another book to sell.

Oh, while I’m here, the first letters slope downward, the second’s flat (I wonder why?) the door slants downward, Hal Snook’s report slants UP….?

Smithy and MM:

Several good points from both, I think.

Occam and his razor…I tend to be with Smithy on that. Besides, what the principle actually states is that the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions which also covers all the known facts, is most likely the right one. It seems to me that in the Z case there is hardly a theory out there which isn’t based to a very high degree on assumption – to the point where it becomes almost absurd to invoke Occam: Your theory above is based on an assumption too, MM – viz. that Z was ambidextrous. If he wrote with his right hand, the law of parsimony declares that he was right handed, not ambidextrous, doesn’t it?

It’s possible that Z simply wrote with the wrong hand without being ambidextrous. His "oddly generic" (as I call it) printing style isn’t incompatible with that (ahem) assumption, is it? His writing isn’t exactly calligraphy.

I agree completely with Smithy regarding disguising techniques. What you say there, Smithy, is pretty much exactly what I’m thinking.

Lastly, I know there are several problems with a pantograph theory (or anything of the sort). But if we go back to old William just one more time here, to assume that Z didn’t (as in, didn’t ever) avail himself of a copying/tracing device/technique of some sort, seems NOT to cover all the known facts:

This is traced/copied – there can’t be any doubt about it. So he DID do such a thing – at least once.

PS What we all agree on, at least, is that Z’s printing is contrived, masked, disguised, faked…call it what you will, to a large extent. And this begs the following question: What did Morrill mean when he stated – seemingly plainly enough – that it was natural, something Z used on an everyday basis? I just don’t get that. I find it a positively unsettling statement on his part.

I wonder why he put the semi-colon after "Editor" on the Examiner envelope? http://zodiackiller.com/ExaminerEnvelope.html

(same one you posted above Norse–it was probably just removed for comparison)

I wonder why he put the semi-colon after "Editor" on the Examiner envelope? http://zodiackiller.com/ExaminerEnvelope.html

(same one you posted above Norse–it was probably just removed for comparison)

That is a very good question. It looks completely out of place.

There’s been some other speculation about that piece of text with which I agree; since I can’t see any reason at all to faithfully copy (pantograph, whatever) one part of one envelope, when everything else is different, I suspect that one of the two "matching" pieces of text is a poor reproduction of the other. There’s a little Occam for ya.