There’s also mention of Zodiac in this FBI doc, but I don’t have time right now to read thru and find it:
http://www.governmentattic.org/4docs/FB … 9-2010.pdf

Here’s more on that FBI appeal for prints, by a ROBERT L. BARRETT, apparently, he suspected a classmate of his.

Robert L. Barrett
Fall River Mills, CA
Age 65

He got married in San Bernardino in the 70s

Wonder what school he attended?

Here’s more on that FBI appeal for prints, by a ROBERT L. BARRETT, apparently, he suspected a classmate of his.

Robert L. Barrett
Fall River Mills, CA
Age 65

He got married in San Bernardino in the 70s

Wonder what school he attended?

He attended, Upland High School, circa class of 1966-67. He also went onto attend the Calif Maritime Academy in Vallejo, graduating July,1970. Wonder who the classmate was that he suspected of being Z?

Furthermore, the court finds that the FBI’s "declaration contains a ‘general showing’ that disclosure of the fingerprints could interfere with local law enforcement agencies’ ongoing investigations of the Zodiac case" because release of the records could result in notification of the subject and allow him to evade capture by law enforcement authorities.

What is this saying here? It sounds like there is a definite poi and the prints have been associated with this person? Am I misinterpreting this statement?

Here’s more on that FBI appeal for prints, by a ROBERT L. BARRETT, apparently, he suspected a classmate of his.

Robert L. Barrett
Fall River Mills, CA
Age 65

He got married in San Bernardino in the 70s

Wonder what school he attended?

He attended, Upland High School, circa class of 1966-67. He also went onto attend the Calif Maritime Academy in Vallejo, graduating July,1970. Wonder who the classmate was that he suspected of being Z?

Superdoublebingo. IMO the Calif Maritime Academy is the hottest issue regarding Z. Deana Hooper and Elaine Faye Lehtinen may be the names connected to that one, including the Enlisted Men’s Club.

QT

Many California Maritime Academy students use to sit in the booths at Terry’s Restaurant and study. I remember being introduced to some of the students when my mother would bring me to work with her sometimes while my father bowled at Kentwig Bowling Alley across the freeway.

Furthermore, the court finds that the FBI’s "declaration contains a ‘general showing’ that disclosure of the fingerprints could interfere with local law enforcement agencies’ ongoing investigations of the Zodiac case" because release of the records could result in notification of the subject and allow him to evade capture by law enforcement authorities.

What is this saying here? It sounds like there is a definite poi and the prints have been associated with this person? Am I misinterpreting this statement?

Yes – that one gave me a start too. Does this mean that the plaintiff’s (presumably an amateur investigator or researcher?) suspect is identical to a person LE is actively investigating? Or am reading this wrong?

Imo, you are mis-reading. I read it to mean the FBI has latent prints that they have identified to a poi but that poi could or could not be the poi the requester has in mind as neither party has named their poi.

Imo, you are mis-reading. I read it to mean the FBI has latent prints that they have identified to a poi but that poi could or could not be the poi the requester has in mind as neither party has named their poi.

I think what they are saying is that if that the prints were released to the public, z may gain access to them and it might give him a advantage in evading them

ITA that is really what they are saying. I read it to mean that the poi whose prints these are would be notified if they were released.

ITA that is really what they are saying. I read it to mean that the poi whose prints these are would be notified if they were released.

Yep, that’s the way it appeared to me also. Kinda like they had a suspect matched to a set of prints pertaining to the Z case.

Hm. Well, excuse me for being uncommonly stupid – but doesn’t this amount to the following: That the authorities have an interest in a person who is still alive? And that the investigation of said person by local LE may suffer in one way or another if the request (again, I presume, made by an independent party of some kind, such as a researcher or a private investigator working on behalf of someone) is granted?

That’s pretty damn interesting in itself, if it’s the case – no? Who are LE looking at? And what independent party is looking at the same person?

The police simply do not want to tip their hand to Z as far as what they do OR do not have as far as evidence.

I’m probably reading too much into this, then.

The authorities have released plenty of material over the years – pertaining to individuals they clearly don’t have an acute interest in (most of whom are dead, granted).

To me it seems as though this particular request involves an individual they do have an interest in. But what that means is another matter. I suppose they could be "interested" in hundreds – or thousands – based solely on the amount of people whose names have at one point or other shown up (redacted or not) in the official documents. And for all I know a request pertaining to any of these people, who are still alive, would be handled in exactly the same manner.

It does sound as though the individual in question is someone who is more or less actively investigated, though. Whatever "actively" means in this context.