It is worded in such an odd way! I’m trying to figure out if it is how I am reading it that is the problem!

Sounds like he is saying women write obscene letters to themselves. lol

One issue that I have with Morrill and the Riverside letters is that he was essentially being asked to confirm or dismiss an established theory (that Zodiac was responsible for the Cheri Jo Bates communications and possibly her murder). Investigators suspected a link and Morrill was asked to analyze the handwriting to determine whether the link was legitimate. There was a lot riding on the results beyond just a simple handwriting comparison and it wasn’t exactly a blind comparison. The question of whether Zodiac wrote the Bates letters and desk poem had to be answered definitively.

Did that pressure to give a definitive answer influence Morrill’s opinions? Could he have given the thumbs up on one and thumbs down on another or express uncertainty without appearing contradictory? We’ll obviously never know that and he apparently didn’t equivocate about even the desk poem. I just really wonder if such a definitive conclusion would have been provided if, for instance, Morrill was asked to analyze all of the handwriting samples completely blind i.e. without knowing anything about where they came from or how they might fit into the investigation.

Sherwood also likely would have felt pressure to link writing to guys like ALA, but he didnt, when they didnt match, they were cleared. Personally, I dont think a writing expert worth any grain of salt, is going to link something just because he felt pressured. In his words, Sherwood stated that the RIverside writing was "unquestionably" the work of zodiac. That’s good enough for me, especially along side Trav’s side by side comparisons.

To me, what comes across fairly strong is Morrill’s confidence… I mean he’s basically saying he could finger the Zodiac. So why didn’t Zodiac respond to Morrill’s challenge? I would think that a guy who had challenged law enforcement to catch him might respond to such a claim.

Another article that I am re-posting from another thread which in part deals with Morrill and his feelings about the April 1978 letter that was deemed fake by everyone but him.

Thanks, Seagull!

Well, this confirms that Morrill only examined a photocopy and not the original. Which is important to know.

The last paragraph is interesting in several ways. Morrill only examined a copy – and yet he sees no reason to re-examine the letter or to change his opinion.

He was either very stubborn/confident in his own expertise – or he was, simply, more than a little insulted/hurt/embarrassed. Plus, he was out of it – didn’t care anymore. Could be read that way too: Not so much convinced the three others were wrong as…humiliated and tired of the whole thing.

I’ve said before – and I know it’s quite an unpopular opinion – that Morrill couldn’t find a ham sandwich that he wouldn’t authenticate as Zodiac’s. I don’t trust his verification(s). I never have.

I’ve got nothing to show about this as evidence. It’s my opinion. Same as anyone else’s.

-glurk

An opinion with which I tend to agree. The ’78 letter for instance is so obviously NOT Zodiac (to me at least), that I don’t understand how such a "trained" eye could have ever authenticated it. Perhaps politics were involved.

Possible matter of politics (in a broad sense) when it comes to the Riverside stuff too.

See entropy’s post on a previous page.

The Riverside connection was a big break – and LE needed a big break. It had been over a year since Z’s last kill and he was still out there, sending taunting letters and keeping himself in the public eye.

Now, here’s a potentially excellent new lead. Of course they wanted Riverside to be Z, that goes without saying. Morrill wasn’t asked to do a blind comparison – he was asked to confirm the Riverside material (as being produced by Z).

Then again, as morf correctly points out above, he did not confirm Allen – so he didn’t just give them what they wanted every time they (Toschi, more precisely) asked.

Twisting it further, though, one could say that Allen’s printing simply wasn’t there. Whereas the Riverside stuff was close enough. The FBI examination admits as much, one could say. But there’s a huge difference between noting that there are sufficient similarities to advise that the same hand may be involved – and concluding, formally, that this is so.

The latter is what Morrill does – no doubt whatsoever, seemingly. And all across the board – desktop poem, notes, perhaps even the Confession envelope. Seems it was all or nothing – which is troubling, I think.

To me it looks as though the SFPD thought Z did the whole thing – murder, notes, letter, poem. And that it was this idea which Morrill basically confirmed.

I’ve said before – and I know it’s quite an unpopular opinion – that Morrill couldn’t find a ham sandwich that he wouldn’t authenticate as Zodiac’s. I don’t trust his verification(s). I never have.

I’ve got nothing to show about this as evidence. It’s my opinion. Same as anyone else’s.

-glurk

It’s your opinion, but may I ask what you base it on? Are you aware of several failures or questionable findings by Morrill?

I’ve said before – and I know it’s quite an unpopular opinion – that Morrill couldn’t find a ham sandwich that he wouldn’t authenticate as Zodiac’s. I don’t trust his verification(s). I never have.

I’ve got nothing to show about this as evidence. It’s my opinion. Same as anyone else’s.

-glurk

He cleared Bob Barnett quickly after the Riverside connection was made. I would say BB is a much better suspect than a ham sandwich. So why do you think this way?

This is a 1986 SF Chronicle article written by a free lancer. It discusses the Zodiac case as a whole but Sherwood Morrill was quoted in the article and it offers a glimpse of Morrill that puts a more human face on him. Since Morrill is a hot topic right now this seems like a good place to put the article.

Maybe those amateur detectives have nothing better to do with their time,” says Morrill. “I say more power to ’em. Maybe one of those people can figure it out.

I guess he was alright, old Sherwood – he approved of us!

I was thinking about Sherwood and Bryan’s car door. You know how I feel about LB, but I am wondering why, if we can question the desk, why not the car door? Why is it a given for some the car door was Zodiac based off handwriting alone–handwriting that could not be analyzed, like the desk?

This of course, is addressed to those who question the Riverside handwriting analysis via Morrill. Asking genuinely.

if we can question the desk, why not the car door? Why is it a given for some the car door was Zodiac based off handwriting alone–handwriting that could not be analyzed, like the desk?

Because the desktop poem wasn’t found at the very location of a Zodiac crime scene?