Who forged the April 1978 letter? Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Zodiackiller.com Message Board » Zodiac Letters » Unconfirmed Zodiac Letters » Who forged the April 1978 letter? « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2007 - 10:35 pm:   

I moved the relevant posts from GRAYSMITH: Curious Claims, Convenient Changes & Conspicuous Contradictions, so we could continue this discussion here...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bababijan
Username: Bababijan

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Saturday, February 10, 2007 - 12:52 pm:   

I am yet to see any kind of "proof" from a qualified and certified handwriting expert that "April 24, 1978, letter" was forged by Robert Graysmith.

Once that audacious leap of liberty is made to paint Robert Graysmith as a forger, then it is very convenient to find a motive for doing so in order to frame him as a complete fraud, which he is not.

I am no fan of Robert Graysmith. At times, I do despise his way of reporting events, however, in the end, he is just another dog trying to find his lucky bone like the rest of us. Time to move on. Stop beating on a dead horse.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2007 - 12:07 am:   

Bobo, according to "Latest Zodiac Letter A Fake, 3 Experts Say," by Duffy Jennings (SF Chronicle, 8-3-1978, pp. 1, 16), we are told that:

John Shimoda, head of the postal service crime lab in San Bruno, Terrence Pascoe of the state's questioned documents bureau, and Keith L. Woodward, for 24 years chief of the Los Angeles Police Department's questioned documents section and now in private practice.

were the 3 experts who determined the 4-24-1978 letter is in fact a forgery. Additionally, handwriting expert Andrea McNichol also proved that letter is a forgery in her 1991 book, Handwriting Analysis: Putting It to Work for You (pp. 88-90).

According to 4 experts, that letter is a forgery, no matter what you want to believe. And everything points to Yellow Book as the culprit, no matter what you want to believe.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Exiled
Username: Exiled

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2007 - 1:51 am:   

I agree with Bababijan....there is nothing that even remotely ties Graysmith(as a forger) to the 4-24-78 letter. It was believed for a short time(as everyone knows) that Toschi was the one who supposedly forged the letter. The final conclusion is that the letter is genuine.

While Graysmith's docu-novels are far from accurate, keep this in mind....it was those very books, like it or not, that have inspired the interest in most everyone(lets see who can be honest about this) on this board. How many of us are going to boycott the movie(march 2nd) that is largely based on both of Graysmith's books???....not me, I'll be at the Century Theatres complex in Vallejo on opening night....I cant wait to see it!

Ed, I usually agree with most of what you have to say on this board and I certainly respect your knowledge.....Do you really believe Graysmith forged the 4-24-78(or any other) letter????....if so, do you have anything concrete that would prove he did???
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Douglas_oswell
Username: Douglas_oswell

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2007 - 3:06 am:   

It always confuses the heck out of me when one undoubted expert positively affirms something and another undoubted expert positively denies it. What's a poor layman to do?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Brian_d
Username: Brian_d

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2007 - 6:03 am:   

What's a poor layman to do?
To not take 'experts' seriously, as in fact, there are no such thing...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2007 - 12:14 pm:   

Graysmith inspired me to get back into the case after many years off. Let's tone down the bashing a bit! I see no positive proof that he deliberately plagiarized or forged letters.

I will see the movie, probably in the DC area.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Yarbchris
Username: Yarbchris

Registered: 9-2006
Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2007 - 1:50 pm:   

I think the forgery claim was an act of politics. The fact that one of the men changed his original position is one of many signs the results were tainted. It proves to me that the results were not based on the handwriting alone. There is a big difference between what Toschi admitted to doing and the innuendo. Toschi was never officially accused of forging any Zodiac letters. Politics is the reason the case has been closed by SFPD. Graysmith was by no means a saint and by no means did he solve the Zodiac case, but is he really the villain here?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2007 - 2:09 pm:   

Exiled wrote:
"The final conclusion is that the letter is genuine."

Where do you get this stuff?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bababijan
Username: Bababijan

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2007 - 5:28 pm:   

Tom, correct me if I am wrong, did Sherwood Morrill not make a final conclusion that April 24, 1978, was not a fake? Are we having a box score here too? Fake 4 and Real 1?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2007 - 5:47 pm:   

Morrill thought it was real, all other document examiners concluded it was a hoax. Doesn't matter anyway, because as I posted more than six years ago, the letter was proven to be a fake via DNA testing.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bababijan
Username: Bababijan

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2007 - 6:25 pm:   

Suppose the four experts cited here are correct and that April 24, 1978, letter is a fake letter. What does that prove? Robert Graysmith did it? Did any of these four experts pinpoint RG as the forger of this dreaded letter? Did these experts compare this letter with those of known Zodiac letters? Or, did they just compare it to handwriting samples of RG? Or, did they do both? If each one did, where did it say in each report that RG was the forger of this letter?

I asked for a "proof" that can show beyond a reasonable doubt that RG was the forger of this letter. I did not ask for some politically taylored document reviews from years of yore.

Just because the four cited experts concluded that this letter was a fake, then how can one make such an audacious leap of liberty to conclude that RG was the forger of this letter? Where is the rest of the "proof" to tie the loose ends for this ongoing baseless acusations? If American penal system was so shallow, then it would be bursting at seems by now. You might even have to wait for your turn to turn on your pop corn maker because the state warden would be too busy frying poor folks who could not afford competent legal counsels. Also, there would be no gurantees for rich folks. Burn, you must!

So far no one could link this letter to RG because RG had nothing to do with it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Yarbchris
Username: Yarbchris

Registered: 9-2006
Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2007 - 6:42 pm:   

I never said the letter wasn't forged, only that it might possibly be genuine.
Does anyone know if the DNA was from the same person on all of the confirmed letters?

DNA from other sources besides the author being found on the letter is certainly not impossible.
If the DNA on the known genuine letters shares the same genetic profile, then it would be a good rule of authenticity for any other letters.

Am I mistaken or isn't Allen your favorite suspect, Tom? DNA was also used to rule him out. DNA is good but certain factors have to be in place to make it an absolute.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bababijan
Username: Bababijan

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2007 - 6:52 pm:   

Tom, via DNA testing?

Testing whose DNA here? DNA of a lone madman?

Among the Zodiacally confirmed letters, how many of them did come up with with the same DNA results? How many of them did come up with a different DNA results?

Among Zodiacally challenged letters, how many of them did come up with with the same DNA results? How many of them did come up with a different DNA results?

Without Zodiac in chains, all these DNA testings amount to nothing. The results might be filed in a Zodiac DNA bank for future reference.

Here is some food for thought. According to an FBI affidavit, which was presented during Ted Kaczynski's case, "203. Latent fingerprints attributable to devices mailed and/or placed by the UNABOM subject were compared to those found on the letters attributed to Theodore Kaczynski. According to the FBI Laboratory, no forensic correlation exists between those samples."

Generally speaking, where does DNA come from? Finger tips? Palms of hands? Sweat drops?

Zodiacally speaking, where does DNA come from? I let you use your vivid imagination because I really do not have belly for gore.

Even with a sure fire Zodiac suspect in chain, there is no guarantee that there is going to be a DNA match from A to Z. Domino style.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2007 - 6:56 pm:   

Baba, I've never seen proof either. A strong argument in favor of a particular culprit, sure. But not proof.

Apparently SFPD used DNA to link the fake letter to someone they knew wasn't the Zodiac.

This thread is getting way off track...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Douglas_oswell
Username: Douglas_oswell

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2007 - 11:26 pm:   

I certainly wouldn't come right out and say that Graysmith definitely forged it. But one has to admit that he would have had a prime motive for forging it. Since this isn't a court of law, we needn't go to the trouble of proving it beyond a reasonable doubt.

My take on the way Graysmith has approached this case is that he never took it very seriously and realized its potential as a vehicle for producing a popular crime book that would generate revenue (much as the current Zodiac movie appears to do). The case was cold and stale, and would probably never be solved, so why not do whatever it took in terms of marketability and promotion for the book?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 12:42 am:   

The very first thing Graysmith claims he did regarding his own investigation into the Z case was interviewing the teen witnesses to the Stine murder, which we know for a fact thanks to Mike Rodelli's research is an outright lie (Zodiac, p. 194). The very next thing we find him claiming he did is asking Morrill in detail about specific characteristics of Z's writing, sometime between 6-16-1977 and 1-30-1978:

"Do you think," I asked Morrill, "that the cursive letter d's and checkmark r's are part of Zodiac's real handwriting?"

"I think so. He's been consistent."

"What about that unusual k?"

"At first we thought that was consistent, but he got away from it. He made it in three separate strokes instead of the more usual two," said Morrill.


It would appear that, if he's actually being truthful here, this incident then is the very first thing he admitted to doing regarding his own investigation. And isn't it curious that he's asking the expert on Z's writing about very specific points regarding said writing?

On 8-5-1978 (p. 217), he goes into detail about the 4-24-1978 letter:

Over vacation, I took a long look at the April Zodiac letter. The writer had correctly used double postage, inverted the stamps, printed "Please Rush to Editor" with a downward slant, placed the odd punctuation colon after "yours truly," used no puncutation after the salutation, and put everyone else's name but his own in lowercase. The letter contained Zodiac's strange spacing between words and letters and used a style of d and three-stroke k used in 1969.

If the new letter was a fake and was done outside of S.F.P.D., what sort of information would be available to a forger without access to the original letters?

I carefully clipped every letter and envelope reprinted in the newspapers to see just how much information the general public had been given about the writing of the letters. Most letters had never been reprinted; those that were were cropped or reduced in size. The author of the letters was someone who had seen all of the letters, since character formations not used for nine years were in the message.
(emphasis mine)

On page 218, Yellow Book goes on to say:

If it were a forgery, no one outside of the police investigation could produce such a perfect copy, incorporating information never before released. For a jealous insider the motive would be to discredit Toschi. But the forger would have no way of knowing that the letter would ever be found false.

In the very next paragraph, he states:

The weather this evening was warm and a shaft of strong sunlight cut through the picture window. I laid out reproductions of all the Zodiac correspondence on the rug... (emphasis mine)

Interesting... and incriminating! By his own admission, in 1978, Robert Graysmith himself had in his possession copies of every single Z letter. His previous statements make it crystal clear that he had studied the peculiarities of Z's letters in exhaustive detail; the list of details regarding Z's writing and phrasing on pp. 313-315 leaves no doubt. The fact that he inquired of Sherwood Morrill very early on is pretty damning too, especially when we consider that, according to the reissue of Zodiac, p. 346, and Zodiac Unmasked, pp. 499-500, it was right around the time he first heard of Allen, and Allen was released from Atascadero on 8-31-1977.

Graysmith goes into detail about how he believed Z used a projector to disguise his writing (pp. 218-219) and, despite this "fact," he notices someone's (presumably Allen's) natural handwriting on 3-12-1980 and states (p. 277):

On the wall was a sign; the lettering, done with felt-tip pen, looked similar to the Zodiac printing. I would have to get a copy of the sign.

A month and a half later, on 4-25-1980 (p. 281), he goes on to say:

I decided to take another look at the poster in back with its printing that resembled Zodiac's. As I feared, it was gone. But as I turned away, I saw something that brought me up short.

Hanging slightly above my eye level were six clipboards with notes and writing on them. One of them had block handprinting on it in felt-tip pen that was the closest to the Zodiac printing that I had ever seen. The block printing was signed. It was signed by [Allen].


As an aside, it's interesting to note that, as late as 7-22-1984 (p. 305), Graysmith was still trying to get samples of Allen's handprinting, despite the fact that he claims Z used a projector to disguise his own handwriting. It's obvious he does not believe his own theory; it was put forth simply to "prove" the April 78 letter was authentic. The fact that he was trying to get samples of Allen's writing for at least 4 years and probably 7 proves this.

Getting back to the matter at hand, Graysmith decides to take a photo of the printing, and just in case it didn't turn out, he states (pp. 281-282):

My absurd backup plan, if the photo was a dud, was to make a copy of the note in felt-tip and tape it down to a brown clipboard exactly like the one in [Allen's] store. I would then go back to the store and make a switch with my copy. I knew I was a good enough artist that if I put the two side by side and moved them around [Allen] himself couldn't tell which was his and which was the one I brought into the store. (emphasis mine)

Graysmith finally admits in his own words that he can convincingly forge someone else's writing. And now all the puzzle pieces have fallen into place.

Graysmith first heard about Allen in July or August 1977. He begins studying Z's writing in detail, gets pointers from Morrill about it, is probably the only person outside of LE who has copies of every single Z letter ever written, and admits he can forge other people's handwriting. Not only that, being an artist, and considering his projector theory, he undoubtedly either owned or had access to everything needed to forge the April 1978 letter in the way he described how Z composed it.

And what would he have to gain by this? It's apparent that either Graysmith or Toschi (or both) believed Allen was Z and SFPD couldn't prove it, so perhaps Graysmith believed the ends justified the means and forged the April 78 letter specifically to point at Allen, especially by using the phrase, "I am back with you." I am not suggesting that Toschi knew of and condoned the forgery, but that Graysmith, quietly and on his own initiative, thought he'd help things along and hopefully Allen would be arrested for the Z crimes, despite the fact that he manufactured the "proof" the cops could never find. However, it backfired, since it was discovered to be a forgery almost immediately, it cost Toschi his job in homicide and his reputation, and it made Morrill look like a fool.

Does any of this prove that Graysmith forged it? No. Are my suppositions accurate? Who knows... but the fact remains that Graysmith's own words are very damning, and he had the means, the motive, and the opportunity.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Douglas_oswell
Username: Douglas_oswell

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 12:55 am:   

Ed, are you aware of that Time-Life crime series book that has a large segment on the Zodiac? Mike Rusconi, who has an artist's eye for detail, drew my attention to a partial copy of the Stine Letter contained in that article, and pointed out numerous elements in the reproduction that don't match the official letter--in other words, the Time-Life copy is a fake, although so cleverly rendered that you'd have to compare it with the actual original, and do the comparison very carefully, to tell the difference.

Where would Time-Life have gotten the copy? Probably from the same source as everyone else who wants to do a piece on the Zodiac case--the undeniable authority on all things Zodiac.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 12:55 am:   

Doug, I had originally thought that, but I also assumed that Yellow Book was actually being truthful when he said he first heard of Allen on 3-2-1980. The fact that he knew of Allen for at least 2 years prior to that gives us an entirely different perspective on the April 1978 letter...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 1:06 am:   

I have that book, Doug, but certainly did not notice that! In looking at it now, I see what you mean... it was either cleaned up a lot, or it's a copy... and I think you're right, it's the latter...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Exiled
Username: Exiled

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 3:41 am:   

Tom wrote: (Exiled)"Where do you get this stuff?"....You make it sound like I'm making this $#@! up off the top my head. There are plenty of "experts" who believe that the 4-24-78 letter is genuine and I'm not alone on this, let me refer you to page 198 of "This is the Zodiac speaking" by your friends M. Kelleher and Dr. D. Van Nuys.

If the letter is not genuine, then it was probably just another fake by some wanna-be, not a "forgery" by Graysmith or Toschi.

Like Bababijan, I am asking for proof, not conjecture, that Graysmith forged the 4-24-78 letter(or any other letters/documents for that matter).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bababijan
Username: Bababijan

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 7:23 am:   

First, Robert Graysmith mapped out as to how he could forge a letter.

Then he forged the letter to frame his top suspect, Arthur Leigh Allen (ALA), to make SFPD look real good.

Finally, after the forgery scheme back fired, he still went ahead and published all that incriminating stuff in his Zodiac book around 1986.

Under such a capricious scenario, RG was not only a forger but he also proved to be a real idiot. Was he? No, he was not.

I am glad that Tom had allowed this kind of crap still wafts through the air after all these years because the stink of it can always be tracked down to a general source.

By the time the Exorcist letter came out in late January 1974, SFPD was not gaining any grounds on Zodiac. So why not come out with a plot to knock out any future Zodiac letters as fakes in order to make him look like a defeated buffoon instead of a villifying villain? Did Toschi write fan letters to himself in order to warm up the stage for a possible reutrn of the Zodiac to needle the blue meanies with yet another one of his vicious letters? Was Toschi not a wounded tiger by the time the Exorcist letter kicked in?

In his April 78, 1978, letter, Zodiac cheerfully announced: "I am back with you." But where did he go with his roach road show? Atlanta? Did Atlanta police not find the clue of "Memorial Drive?"

Robert Graysmith did not have to fake a letter in order to frame ALA for anything because the truth will always surface when it is least expected. Just because SFPD could not link ALA to any Zodiac crime in California, then that would not mean that he could go off the hook as a potential co-conspirator in Atlanta child murders even though he had been declared a dead horse for many years.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Kevin
Username: Kevin

Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 8:04 am:   

Has it crossed anyone else's mind besides my own that there could possibly be plant or two on this board?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Exiled
Username: Exiled

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 8:20 am:   

Kevin, that is very interesting....but for what purpose? What would infiltrating this board really accomplish?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bababijan
Username: Bababijan

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 9:19 am:   

By going online with his web site, Tom had taken a very radical step to address the insufficient and incompetent steps taken by the local police departments during the course of the investigations of the Zodiac attacks.

As such, his site is bound to attract all types of elements, including blue potted plants as well as red dotted moles to make it a fair game.

Good observation, Kevin.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Howard_davis
Username: Howard_davis

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 2:39 pm:   

These are questions and terse comments only:

Has anyone on this Board even seen the envelope of the 4/24/78 letter?

Does anyone have the DNA report concerning this letter?We know Toschi handled this letter so DNA contamination is a possible.

Is there a report of fact proving that GS or Toschi forged this letter?

Has anyone looked at Paul Avery?He certainly had the Z case knowledge and copies of all or most of the Z letters-if this is a qualifier for a Z forger.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Howard_davis
Username: Howard_davis

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 3:48 pm:   

Another question;
Has anyone seen or read Sherwood Morrill's report on the 4/24/78 letter?
He was State Expert with some 50 years of experience in document examination and world authority on Zodiac's writing.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 4:58 pm:   

Bobo, you believe that L Ron Hubbard was the Grand Poobah of the Zodiac Killer Assassins and through some sort of bizarre Satanic conspiracy was trying to conquer the world. Considering that, your opinion about RG's veracity is unimportant.

The point of a forgery, gentlemen, is to fool the experts. That Morrill fell for it does not undermine his opinion on anything else, what it does show is the expertise of the forger. Not only that, there are at least 4 other just as qualified experts who say it is a fake: John Shimoda, Terrence Pascoe, Keith L. Woodward and Andrea McNichol. Of these, McNichol is not politically or personally motivated, so her opinion is even more valid than the others.

Another thing that I find curious is, why is anyone defending Graysmith? I'm tired of dancing around the obvious, so I'll state it here and now: using his own words, he is a known and proven liar (for instance, look at the 3 different dates and 3 different versions of his conversation with Toschi regarding Allen, and he was half of the people there! Clearly, two of them are blatant lies, and odds are probably all 3), so why does anyone believe what he says? How can anyone trust the word of a liar, even if he is telling the truth?

That's why the truth is so critical at all times, and this is one of the reasons why this case will never be solved as long as Graysmith's lies are believed; they've done nothing but poison this case for 21 years and counting. Did I prove that he forged the April 78 letter? No. But we know for a fact that it is a forgery and that Toschi was not behind it. And, as I outlined in my earlier posts, Graysmith had the means, the motive and the opportunity, and was, by his own admission, the only person we know of outside of law enforcement who was in a position to convincingly forge that letter, especially considering his skill as an artist and his own admission that he even planned to forge Allen's writing.

I doubt there are any laws against forging notes from serial killers, and, if there are, it's been 29 years and doubtless the statute of limitations has long been exceeded. I've listed my reasons, many of them in Graysmith's own words, showing how and why I think he forged that letter. I'm waiting for someone, anyone, to do more than just throw Morrill's name out there as if it solves everything.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bababijan
Username: Bababijan

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 5:25 pm:   

Did I prove that he forged April 78 letter? No. But we know for a fact that it is a forgery ...

Who is this we?

No, I still do not know.

Lay out the facts for us. Show us the proof.

Stop doing the thinking for the rest of us as if we are a bunch of brain deads in need of intelectual charity.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Yarbchris
Username: Yarbchris

Registered: 9-2006
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 5:57 pm:   

Ed, despite some of Baba's outrageous claims, he is capable of making a good point now and then. That doesn't mean I'll be joining the Zodiac Network anytime soon.

>"I doubt there are any laws against forging notes from serial killers"

Hindering an investigation, creating false evidence, trying to frame someone for murder - this isn't legal. If he forged the letter, he can, at the very least, be tried in the press in this day and age. What proof do you have that Graysmith forged this letter? None. What handwriting experts have said that this letter was written by Graysmith? Any? The only reasoning I can see behind the claim that Graysmith forged this letter is: 1.Graysmith wrote false information. 2. The letter would be convenient for Graysmith's claims. 3. Graysmith said that it wouldn't be difficult to forge a letter. 4. Graysmith showed an interest in handwriting samples. (Who investigating the Zodiac hasn't showed an interest in handwriting. That is one of the first things anyone checks against a subject.)

What does wanting Allen's handwriting have to do with forging the Zodiac letter? Nothing.

There is a difference between defending someone and vilifying someone. Graysmith exaggerated claims, presented faulty information, and claimed to solve a case that is still unsolved. I guess that makes for an easy and convenient target to explain away and fortify one's claims. If you can't pin it on Toschi, then by all means pin it on Graysmith. After all, who around here is going to have the balls to say Graysmith isn't the devil? That would be like wearing a Dio t-shirt on the 700 Club. It is easy to place blame on people you dislike, but it isn't in the best interest of your cause. Dan Rather is a good example of that.

Graysmith is one of the most prominent personalities surrounding the Zodiac. If someone can prove to the world that he forged one of the Zodiac letters, by all means do so. That would be groundbreaking, especially with his new movie coming out. That would certainly hurt his public credibility. That would make some lucky journalist a superstar. My bet: It ain't gonna happen. He did not forge that letter. No one can prove that he did.

As for Andrea McNichol, her books are based on generalities and are by no means an in-depth analysis of handwriting. It was rather easy for her to come to a widely agreeable conclusion considering it had already been done. I also don't recall her saying that it was Graysmith that authored the letter.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 5:57 pm:   

It goes without saying (at least for you, Bobo). I laid out the facts in Graysmith's own words. Plus, as I said before, 4 experts say it's a fake. One says it's authentic. Those are the facts, and I'll go with the majority.

I have the facts, logic and reasoning on my side. All you have is belief, Bobo. Please explain to us all why you believe the April 78 letter is genuine despite the facts.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bababijan
Username: Bababijan

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 6:01 pm:   

Tom, correct me if I am dead wrong.

Without your permission, this little hench ball of yours would not be able to transfer a part of the original thread here in order to continue his bashing of Robert Graysmith. Would he?

Without your permission, he would never dare to disrespect another board member. Would he?

The original thread should have gone to the trash bin the moment you concluded that there was no proof that RG had forged the April 24, 1978, letter. Should it not?

Tom, it only takes two to tango. I am only here to see the world go by. With each post, he is making you look bad too.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Exiled
Username: Exiled

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 6:18 pm:   

Ed, no one has to prove that the letter is genuine, you need to prove that it is was forged, which you cannot do.....what facts???? so far all you have come up with is conjecture and speculation. So once again, your personal opinions aside, prove once and for all that the letter is a forgery and not just a simple fake(and there is a huge difference).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Howard_davis
Username: Howard_davis

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 6:18 pm:   

Can anyone answer my questions?And they are just that-questions with some basic comments.

There is no need for all of this negative wrangling.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bababijan
Username: Bababijan

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 6:20 pm:   

This orginal discussion came to be for two simple reasons as follows:

1. April 24, 1978, letter was deemed a forgery according to 4 experts.

2. After making an audacious leap of liberty, Robert Graysmith was framed and painted as the forger for the letter without any proof. None whatsoever.

After being forced by the web master of this site and some board members to retract his position, Ed Neil now wishes me to state my belief. That is beyond the ambit of this thread.

We are here for Ed Neil to put up or shut up. Aparently, he does not get the message.

I have been through these standard set ups at this message board before.

Ed Neil set up the situation for Tom Voigt to come in to either delete my posts or delete the whole threads in order to make me look bad.

Ed Neil's last post just speak for itself.

Tom, should have given him the boot long time ago because he has served his purpose at the infancy of this Z case just like RG. Just my opinion.

This Z case needs some fresh blood to make it come to life. By bashing Graysmith's and Azimi's of this Z world, we will not be able to at least partially solve this case.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 6:29 pm:   

YC: Bobo does make the rare good point, but the rest of his BS is such that I don't notice them.

You wrote: Hindering an investigation, creating false evidence, trying to frame someone for murder - this isn't legal.

Good points all, but that wasn't quite what I was getting at. And trying to frame Allen is conjecture on my part (I hope that was obvious, but, if not: it's conjecture, and the facts certainly support it, I think). You are correct, I have no proof, but there is this thing called "circumstantial evidence," something that seems to be good enough for those who support Allen, despite the fact that there has never been a smoking gun to link him to Z. I listed the circumstances, and, IMHO, it all points to Graysmith and no one else.

What does wanting Allen's handwriting have to do with forging the Zodiac letter? Nothing.

Actually, it does. He admitted he considered forging Allen's writing in order to get a real sample for Morrill. If his conscience was such that he thought it was OK to forge the writing of a suspect, it isn't a great leap to suggest he considered forging the writing of a serial killer. Why would it bother him to forge Z's writing if he was prepared to forge Allen's?

There is a difference between defending someone and vilifying someone. Graysmith exaggerated claims, presented faulty information, and claimed to solve a case that is still unsolved.

You're being way too kind. While he is guilty of what you claim, he's also guilty of fabricating evidence (which is just a nice way of saying he lied). There's a thread dedicated to that.

Graysmith is one of the most prominent personalities surrounding the Zodiac. If someone can prove to the world that he forged one of the Zodiac letters, by all means do so. That would be groundbreaking, especially with his new movie coming out. That would certainly hurt his public credibility. That would make some lucky journalist a superstar. My bet: It ain't gonna happen. He did not forge that letter. No one can prove that he did.

I doubt it's possible to prove Graysmith forged that letter, unless DNA from it is compared to him and it's a match, but I don't think it'll ever happen. But then, if there was a match, then just like those who support Allen who said, "But he had neighborhood kids lick the stamps and envelopes," there will be those who say, "Of course his DNA is on the envelope, he handled it while Toschi allowed him to look over items about the case." This is ignoring the obvious and Occam's Razor: if his DNA is present in the adhesive, then it got there because he licked it.

As for Andrea McNichol, her books are based on generalities and are by no means an in-depth analysis of handwriting. It was rather easy for her to come to a widely agreeable conclusion considering it had already been done. I also don't recall her saying that it was Graysmith that authored the letter.

Then why didn't she agree with Morrill? It was just as easy to do, but she didn't, despite the fact that Morrill has a better reputation than Shimoda, Pascoe and Woodward; I also did point out that she is neither personally nor politically motivated to render an opinion one way or the other. Nor did she suggest Graysmith forged it because, at that time, no one even considered the possibility.

Bobo: no one has forced me to retract my position. I stated my opinion as to why the April 78 letter is a forgery and who forged it, and I backed it up with the opinions of 4 experts and the very words of the man I believe to be responsible for the forgery. Why are you not giving us your reasons for your belief that it's genuine? And this isn't about bashing Graysmith, this is about getting to the truth. Believing that a forged letter is genuine may not prevent anyone from solving the case, but when there are so many such instances of exaggerations, mis- and disinformation and outright lies, how can anyone solve it when people like you choose to believe the lies and aren't interested in getting at the truth?

Put up or shut up.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 6:34 pm:   

Exiled: as reported in the Chronicle, 3 experts rendered an opinion that the letter is a forgery, and I provided the information as to where to find the opinion of a 4th expert. And, if you care to look at this, the very last line from this police document shows that they know it's a forgery too.

I think it's up to you to prove it's genuine. I have 4 experts on my side, plus, I backed up all of my conjecture with the very words of the man I think forged it.

Please come up with something better than telling me I have to prove a proven forgery is a forgery.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bababijan
Username: Bababijan

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 6:34 pm:   

Dr. Davis, please scroll up and read Tom's post of Sunday, February 11, 2007, at 6:56 pm. Also his post with a link before that where you can see some DNA report.

By doing so, you will be able to get some answers to your questions.

Also, as I understand it, Graysmith is the source for all available prints of this April 1978 letter. For example, see http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/hoaxes.html

If this is a fake letter, then why someone from inside of SFPD was not allowed to leak the letter and the mailing envelope to you, Tom, Jake, or anyone else just for the want of it, through out years?

Just some food for thought.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 6:41 pm:   

Baba, a picture of the letter was published in countless newspapers.

I've always considered that letter to be a hoax and thus wasn't interested in acquiring copies.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bababijan
Username: Bababijan

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 7:29 pm:   

Exiled, the list which was posted by Tom earlier only shows that a few cells had been obtained from the mailing envelopes for certain Zodiac letters. That is just about it. That is all it is telling you.

Can you imagine how many folks had handled each mailing envelope for a Zodiac letter before reaching its destination? Did SFPD go out there to perform a process of elimination in order to come out with a few DNA cells, which allegedly belonged to Zodiac?

The last entry does not even mention where the DNA cells were found. In every other instance, DNA sample cells were extracted from a mailing envelope to rule in or rule out a letter. Right in the end, SFPD just decides to not reveal the exact location for DNA samples. Why not? It seems that SFPD is trying to hide the mailing envelope for this letter.

Remember the mailing envelope for channel 9 letter of May 2, 1978? It was very hard to pin that letter on Robert Graysmith. Maybe Zodiac sent that letter to Channel 9 in Los Angeles because he would have a better chance of exposure without going through another RG-Faked-it episode.

Also, the April 24, 1978, letter was listed under "SUSPECTED ZODIAC CORRESPONDENCE." It was not listed under "SUSPECTED FAKED ZODIAC CORRESPONDENCE." There is a big difference between the two lists.

For examples, under the SFPD listing, SLA letter of February 14, 1974, and 21 Times letter and code of 1971 were not listed. Both of these letters were sent to SF Chronicle.

Where is SFPD's listing for "SUSPECTED FAKED ZODIAC CORRESPONDENCE?"

Finally, if this April 1978 letter was deemed to be a fake letter by SFPD via DNA testing, then why was it listed under "SUSPECTED ZODIAC CORRESPONDENCE" instead of keeping it with other letters such as SLA letter, 21 Times letter, etc., etc?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bababijan
Username: Bababijan

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 7:39 pm:   

Tom, thank you. That goes to show that RG was the first person who put out a print of the April 1978 letter for public consumption. Even if I am wrong, it still makes no difference.

A picture of a letter is very different than a print of a letter. Case in point, see the picture of the confession letter at your own site, then compare it to the yellow print of the type-written letter.

Once again, we are drifting way off the track here.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 7:43 pm:   

The important thing that we just learned from Bobo here is that any letter written by anyone claiming to be Z is considered by him to be 100% authentic. He also believes L Ron Hubbard was Z.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bababijan
Username: Bababijan

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 7:59 pm:   

The important lesson that I learned from this whole RG bashing episode was that Ed Neil continues to use his fat butt to do his thinking. He also expects the rest of us to follow his lead like a pack of flying blind bats. Fat chance.

Let us hope that a pill or two can cure his shortcomings and sufferings sometime soon.

Hey goof ball, did it ever cross your twisted mind that you are not cut to be a Zodiologist?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Yarbchris
Username: Yarbchris

Registered: 9-2006
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 8:15 pm:   

Would it be possible to limit this debate to rational thought? This kind of talk isn't going to help bolster anyone's position. I hope Baba's predictable behavior (cunningly elicited) does not define the value of the opposing point of view.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Exiled
Username: Exiled

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 8:34 pm:   

Ed, I am fully aware of that outdated document.....I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 8:47 pm:   

Exiled, why is it that you always bail on a subject just when it's time for you to substantiate a claim? Dennis does the exact same thing and it doesn't fly around here.

I'll tell you what is sure seeming "outdated" to me, and that's your knowledge of the Zodiac case. You cling to the yellow book like it's a life raft.

If you're going to participate in the discussions, especially when making claims, you need to substantiate them, just like the rest of us do. Also, please try and comprehend the fact that -- believe it or not -- new information has surfaced since that book was published.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 8:56 pm:   

Ed and Baba, please cut the taunting and namecalling.

Baba, the reason that letter is listed on the document is because it was once a suspected Zodiac letter.

No longer.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bababijan
Username: Bababijan

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 9:01 pm:   

Yarb, you are new to this board. You are not familiar with behind the scene going ons around here.

Tom had used Ed Neil for the same purpose on previous occasions to ban folks from this message board because they tried to promote their unwelocmed Zodiac theories. I was one of them on several occasions. He set me up under similiar circumstances to ban me. When was the last time that you read in this message board about someone who was allowed to promote his more than one suspect theory?

You only see that Harry Martin thread, which is riddled by bashing posts from Ed Neil. One night in chat, an unknown chatter even claimed that he knew that Ed Neil voted for Harry Martin. I did not know what it was all that about. Go figure. It is important to note that I do not support Harry Martin's ramblings.

So here we are again. Tom is hiding in the bushes and letting his odd ball henchman to do his biddings before he comes done to make his move.

If you do not believe me, ask Tom himself. He might have enough guts to admit to it. If not, then ask around. Other old timers at this message board may wish to share their info with you.

During my previous appearances, my posts as well as posts from Dr. Howard Davis routinely got deleted. Tom & Angie had told me that they did not deleted such posts. Thus, all fingers can be pointed to Ed Neil because he had means and motives to delete such posts. In fact, one night when I was in the chat room in disguise, Ed Neil was boosting for his bossom buddies who cared to listen that he regularly deleted my posts. Unfortunaly, I was not able to catch him confessing to deleting Dr. Davis' posts.

So as you may wish to see, Ed Neil is the only one around here and the chat room who has been allowed to act as Tom's goon. Is there any wonder he is routinely getting away with it?

It pays for Tom Voigt to have a fat goon like Ed Neil around.

Please do me a favor and let me handle this situation my own way.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bababijan
Username: Bababijan

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 9:22 pm:   

Tom, what do you really expect Exile to say? Maybe he is playing it diplomatically because he knows that if Ed Neil starts calling him names then you are not going to do a damn thing about it.

Was it not you who accused me of starting a bunch of drama at the message board? Why not scroll up to see how it all started? Maybe you already know? Why is this thread even here to begin with? Can you answer me that simple question? When will you stop using Ed Neil as you fat goon to do your RG bashings?

I do not want to get into the detailed stuff but maybe you should not have settled your beef with RG the way it was settled. It seems to me that RG bought you out to silence you for good and that is why you are still pissed off about the whole situation.

Had you played your cards right, then Hollyweird would be making a flick based upon your z search instead of RG's. So blame yourself not RG. Then move on. Let bygones be bygones.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Yarbchris
Username: Yarbchris

Registered: 9-2006
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 9:47 pm:   

Baba, I am new only to posting. I have followed the board for quite some time, and researched prior posts, even those that no longer exist. As a seasoned webmaster of several websites, I am no stranger to the deletion of irrelevant and inflammatory ranting, as you should know. I only suggest that you refrain from behavior that would get your posts deleted legitimately.

You are trying to make what I consider a valid point (concerning the alleged forgery). You only hurt your case when you make personal attacks. As a veteran of Internet discussion in general, please take my advice and do not let others control your emotions. People take not only the posts into consideration, but the reputation of the poster.

Is it too late to get back on topic? I think it is telling that Maupin arrived with his accusations with his publicist on hand. The accusations that brought questions about the letter in the first place. He was promoting Tales Of The City at the time. I find it odd that Maupin never mentioned anything before.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Exiled
Username: Exiled

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 10:13 pm:   

First things first; I have never made the claim that the(4-24-78) letter was authentic...I stated in a previous post that the final conclusion(as told to me by some former and current LE officials) was that the letter was genuine. I am open to the idea that the letter is a fake, not a forgery, which is a paranoid, asinine assertion.

I asked that Ed show me(and the rest of the board) definitive proof that the letter was forged...and more specifically, that Graysmith was behind this so-called forgery. In this case, the onus is on Ed, not me, to substantiate his claim.

Ok Tom, let me get this straight, according to you I "cling to the yellow book like it's a life raft"....didn't I create a thread on this board entitled "let's put this one to bed" that made it clear on what I thought of ALA("Yellow book's" main man) as a suspect???? And haven't I on more than one occasion referred to Graysmith's books as "docu-novels"???

I resent the comparison to Kaufman, but I guess I'll live. If you feel that I should not participate on this board then that is certainly up to you. It is after all your site. As I have said before, I don't always agree with you(or others on this site), but I do respect your point of view no matter how much it differs from mine. I just don't feel that the insults and personal attacks are necessary.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 10:16 pm:   

Baba, I warned Ed. What else would you like? And I don't need Ed to boot or ban people; I'm quite good at it myself.

By the way, if you'll recall, when I agreed to give you another message board account, I asked you to create a new thread and place all of your posts there. Instead, you're back to your same old habit of turning everything into a conspiracy theory and zanyness like dead Lindberg babies being somehow related to the Zodiac case.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bababijan
Username: Bababijan

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 10:25 pm:   

Yarb, apparently, you like to hear yourself only. Also, you have your own axe to grind here too. So this situation had given you the opportunity to put your two cents in. Do not get me started here.

Once again, I am not interested in your momentary quips as to how I should handle my own affairs here at the message board.

Tom is the one who needs to get his acts together in order to prevent such events from happening over and over again.

If you are too blind to notice what can be easily noticed here, then I can not help you.

By deleting my posts, Tom will not be able to shut me up or cover up his shortcomings in his dealings with RG.

By trying to constantly bash RG, one will not be able to achieve anything at this stage of this Z game. He is a dead horse as far as I am concerned. Stop beating it so unmercifully.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 10:26 pm:   

Exiled, whether you personally believe it to be genuine isn't the issue. The issue is that you claimed the April 1978 letter was determined to be genuine, something that is not true. And, as usual, instead of actually substantiating it, we get the ol' "unnamed sources" routine.

PLEASE READ: I posted that SFPD/DNA document in 2001. There was no Zodiac DNA sample until late 2002. That means for SFPD to have determined via DNA that it wasn't an authentic letter, they would have needed to compare that test sample from the letter to a specific person. Which is obviously what they did, hence their conclusion. And, obviously the person they compared it to was someone they knew wasn't the Zodiac.

Therefore, no, it wasn't determined to be genuine. You need new sources.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 10:33 pm:   

Baba, what's the matter with you? I haven't deleted anything you've posted since you got a new user account. But I'm quickly getting tired of you mentioning me in a negative manner, when I am the one who let you have another account under certain conditions that you aren't honoring.

Weren't you supposed to notify me when you perceive someone is being abusive? Believe it or not, I don't read every friggin' post in every friggin' thread, and I usually only scan yours.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bababijan
Username: Bababijan

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 10:59 pm:   

Tom, you warned Ed? So far the records indicate that your warning had been taken like a master who whistles for his attack dog to do more of the same. So, please, do not go there.

Another thing is that I really do not have to go and post your e mail here to prove my point regarding what you wrote me. Because I know what you wrote me.

There was no agreement regarding me posting all my stuff under a single thread. Why do you want to corral me as such? Do you not think that is kind of discriminatory tactic?

What does my posts regarding stop RG bashing got to do with my research regarding the existence of Zodiac Network?

Did you tell Hawk to go and make his own thread and post all his stuff under that thread when he started his Rock Querry and Toy Bomb threads? No, you did not.

Tom, stop using Ed Neil as you pet goon and do your own dirty work for once. Maybe folks will start looking at you under different light.

If you have problem with my Lindbergh's Baby Kidnapping theory, then that is your problem. Not mine.

At some point FBI even did not recognize the existence of such thing as Mafia. Times did change. Zodiac Network is the global Mafia, which is nowadays referred to as Terror Network. Why are you so uptight with my views that you need to box me in under a single thread at your message board?

I bet you that if I would join your message board with a theory that my former milkman was the Zodiac, then you would be living in dog heaven happily ever after. Is there any wonder as to why you have achieved so much after being online for so many years? Hollyweird is making an 85 million dollars flick outta RG's books and you are selling $5 Stine coffee mug. If I were you, I would be mad as hell too. But, I say, "Get over it. Move on."

Tom, for once in your life, take responsibility for your own doings. Stop putting blame on others. This is a part of growing up. I am doing mine. You start doing yours.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Exiled
Username: Exiled

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 11:08 pm:   

Tom, I'll take the high road here....I will double check with my sources(of which some are probably yours too) and if I'm wrong then I have no problem with that. But that is far from the point of this thread. You virtually ignored(like you normally do) the bulk of my post, in which I ask Ed to substantiate his claim that the letter is forged(by Graysmith or anyone else). He has yet to do that. I have nothing against Ed, I just don't believe that he can prove his claim. Ed(and some others) must be exempt from your "criticism" when it comes to making unsubstantiated claims.

You say that I routinely bail on a subject?.....I would like a response to your claim that I "cling to the yellow book...."...I'm interested to see if you can respond to this post sans the personal attacks and your typical insulting undertones.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 11:11 pm:   

So, if namecalling occurs, I shouldn't try and stop it? Had I not warned Ed to stop, you'd be upset over that. Seems I'm damned either way with you, Baba.

If you don't start honoring our agreement about creating and posting in your own thread, you will no longer have an account. Now, before you decide to interpret that as me attempting to stop you from expressing your theory, ask yourself why I allowed you a password in the first place.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 11:19 pm:   

Exiled, I've already posted that I've seen no proof that a particular person authored that letter, so why would I do it again.

By clinging to the yellow book, I mean that you argue on behalf of certain claims that were published in that book, but that have been proven false in recent years. Such as Donald Fouke participating in the SFPD composite sketch, the April 1978 letter was authentic, etc. Give me a few minutes and I can come up with more examples.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bababijan
Username: Bababijan

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 11:28 pm:   

Getting back to the topic, the only way to rule out this April 1978 letter would be to compare DNA samples from this letter to DNA samples from all other Zodiacaly confirmed letters, which have matching DNA samples.

I repeat, "Matching DNA samples."

How many matching samples SFPD have gathered throuh out years? Why should anyone take SFPD's words for it without asking for the proof?

SFPD can not have it both ways. It can not propagate certain news as facts without backing it up.

First, let me see the matching DNA results for the Zodiacally confirmed letters, then we will take it from there.

How did DNA matching get into this episode of RG bashing anyway? What does the conclusions of 4 handwriting experts got to do with DNA results for Zodiac letters?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 11:36 pm:   

Baba, if the April 1978 letter was matched to someone who couldn't be the Zodiac, there's no need for further testing.

Furthermore, who would you believe if not SFPD? If you're really determined to believe the letter is authentic, a good way to do it is to mistrust the messenger. Each one.

So who would you ever believe? Is there such a person?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Yarbchris
Username: Yarbchris

Registered: 9-2006
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 11:38 pm:   

>Yarb, apparently, you like to hear yourself only.

Baba, It was listening to you that somehow gave me the idea you might actually have something meaningful to say. It just so happened I agreed with you on a certain point, and had read other post you had made. I thought some of what you had to say actually made sense. It seems I had forgotten the old adage about the broken clock. In fact, I had purposely avoided your threads because you lash out at anyone, often without provocation. However, this discussion was on a topic I had written about earlier and had certain opinions about. It is a shame that your apparent intelligence will always be overshadowed by your petulance. At your request, I will gladly leave you with your own peril.

I have no ax to grind here. You have an ax to grind with me because I wouldn't let you pollute my blog with your false accusations and conspiracy theories. You don't see me posting drivel anonymously at your site, do you? I'm not one for grudges or I'd have avoided any defense of you whatsoever. As far as putting in my two cents, I have a big old jar of pennies and if I don't spend them here I'll spend them elsewhere.
------
Ed has said that forgery probably couldn't be proved. Just as it probably cannot be proved a forgery, it probably cannot be proved authentic to any consensus. Ed has stated his reasons for believing what he does. Some of us have stated our reasons for believing the opposite. The point of all of this is that there is no final conclusion either way, and there probably never will be. Each of us can state our case for believing what we do. We can list the different motivations, forensic findings, expert opinions and other reasons. People can choose what they want to believe. My own belief is that the letter should be ignored for the most part, but at least considered where it might have any meaning. We simply do not know who wrote it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bababijan
Username: Bababijan

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 11:43 pm:   

Tom, you asked for it. You got it. Do not try to take me for a sucker. Here is your e mail:

From : <messageboard@zodiackiller.com>
Reply-To : <messageboard@zodiackiller.com>
Sent : Saturday, January 27, 2007 5:47 PM
To : "baba bj" <bababijan@hotmail.com>
Subject : Re: accout request

| | | Inbox


Baba, please start a new thread in the "Zodiac Theories" section and keep all of your theory-related posts in that one thread. If you post in other threads, no equations or tie-ins with your theory.

User name: bababijan
Password: zzz

To change your password, click this link:
http://www.zodiackiller.com/cgi-bin/discus/board-p rofile.cgi

Now read it good and tell me what part of our agreement did I fail to follow? You have all my posts at your message board as I followed your instruction.

Tom, were you not the character who gave me 15 minutes to publish my crack sheets for 340-symbol code at your message board or be banned about 2 years ago? Are you not? Tell everybody about that situation too before you delete this whole post and get rid off all the embarassing evidence as usual.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Yarbchris
Username: Yarbchris

Registered: 9-2006
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 11:43 pm:   

If I knew we were back on the topic, I would have withheld the first part of my last post. Sorry.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 11:46 pm:   

There was no Zodiac DNA sample until late 2002.

For SFPD to have used DNA back in the late 1990s to determine that a possible Zodiac letter was not, in fact, authentic, they must have successfully compared that letter's DNA sample to the DNA sample of a specific person.

The only other alternative is that they jumped in the official SFPD time machine and traveled ahead several years in order to compare it to the Zodiac's DNA sample.

Since that April 1978 letter was so questionable from the beginning, and since an obvious prime suspect as the author (Dave Toschi) was already well established, it stands to reason SFPD would have first tried to match it to Toschi before wasting more time, effort and money on comparisons to confirmed Zodiac letters.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 11:51 pm:   

Baba, where did you post that Lindberg baby crap? Was it in a specified thread? Nope. Ditto your references to Zodiac's "magic" or whatever the hell you call it.

Finally, when a doctor prescribes you medication, it's wise to
FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE BOTTLE.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 11:52 pm:   

Yarbchris, I believe this thread is doomed for the Trash Can...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bababijan
Username: Bababijan

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 11:56 pm:   

Tom, you are here telling me that I just should take SFPD's words for it just because it said so. Why?

Why should I let SFPD do my own thinking? It seems to me that SFPD had gone to great pains to paint RG as the faker of this April 1978 letter, and they are not really intrested in doing the right thing to change that picture at this stage.

Tom, would it not be nice to ask them to provide you with their matching DNA results for Zodiacally confirmed letters just as a starter? We can always take it from there.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 12:01 am:   

Baba, did you ever consider that if SFPD and company really are for some reason lying about the authenticity of the April 1978 letter, you can't trust the authenticity of any of the "confirmed" letters, either?

In other words, the very Zodiac letters you've used to build/support your theory might in fact be bogus.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bababijan
Username: Bababijan

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 12:09 am:   

Tom, since when do you need yarb's blessing to delete a whole thread?

I knew from the get go that you had planned this whole thing with your pet goon from the night before.

So after failing at your own game, you need to find someone to blame again?

All my posts are at your message board. I even asked before hand if I could start that Lindbergh's Baby Kidnapping as proposed. You gave me your terms and I did not like it so I just let it be. You have a problem with that too?

Tom, anyone who reads your e mail can clearly see that it got nothing to do with my medications. It is you who is losing your marbles because you can not get over the fact that RG is a far better chess player than you. But did it ever cross your mind that you need to learn the moves if you wish to become a winner.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Yarbchris
Username: Yarbchris

Registered: 9-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 12:16 am:   

I just want to clarify that I don't believe anyone is "lying" about the authenticity of the letter. I believe the graphology results might be tainted by the revelation that Toschi fabricated fan letters to Maupin and/or the heated political atmosphere within the department at the time.

I don't think Toschi or Graysmith forged the letter, but if one of them did, I would say Toschi simply because it mentions him by name.

I don't necessarily think this is an authentic Zodiac letter. It could even be a hoax.

My main contention is that both the authenticity and authorship of the letter remains in question. I don't see anything conclusive regarding who did or didn't pen the letter.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 12:18 am:   

"Tom, anyone who reads your e mail can clearly see that it got nothing to do with my medications..."

Perhaps that's because you're not yet medicated. If I were you, that'd be at the top of my to-do list...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bababijan
Username: Bababijan

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 12:31 am:   

Very good point, Tom. That is why I never stop seeking the truth.

If I survive at this message board long enough, I am hoping to show you and the rest of the folks as to how SFPD had been feeding its Z info to those in need of it. With sheer contempt.

I do things in my own ways and at my own pace because it works for me. You are entitled to do it anyway you wish.

PS: Stick with your profession of building web sites. That is what you are good at. Let me decide if I need to be medicated.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Exiled
Username: Exiled

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 12:39 am:   

Yarbchris, nicely put. That pretty much sums up what I've been trying to say all along.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Yarbchris
Username: Yarbchris

Registered: 9-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 12:56 am:   

I find Ambrose Bierce's insight quite enlightening despite its being written with tongue-in-cheek:
------------------
PROOF, n. Evidence having a shade more of plausibility than of unlikelihood. The testimony of two credible witnesses as opposed to that of only one. -from the Devil's Dictionary, 1911.
-----------------
The above "definition" describes the kind of proof any Zodiac researcher will encounter on a daily basis. In the end, its usually what one chooses to believe. I believe the technology exists to find the answers we seek regarding all of the letters. The lack of interest among the right folks and getting them to raise/spend the money makes the technology worthless.

There was a body buried in Scotland many years ago. People are pretty sure of the location. If they were to dig there, they might solve a murder. As far as I know, its not on anyone's to-do list.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Exiled
Username: Exiled

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 1:07 am:   

Lol....Yarbchris, you have proven to be a resounding voice of reason! I don't believe anyone could ever underestimate(wink!) your witty intelect.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bababijan
Username: Bababijan

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 1:13 am:   

We are still way off topic here. This whole thing started because I asked Ed Neil to show us his "proof" that RG forged April 24, 1978.

All the smoke that was created to cause distraction should not be a reason to forget why we are still here.

Tom even allowed Ed to post his views in MP3 format in the hacked message board. So Ed was not alone in pulling all these RG bashing stuff.

If RG was not framed to be blamed for this April 24, 1978, letter, then it would be just like any other Zodiacally challenged letter. It is very hard not to see the amount of personal malice being exerted whenever this issue is brought up.

Did anyone hear so much heated arguements over who wrote or forged Celebrity Cypher postcard? No. That postcard was even mailed in 1990.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 2:29 am:   

Wow... I leave for a few hours and there's a total meltdown!

Exiled wrote:

First things first; I have never made the claim that the(4-24-78) letter was authentic...I stated in a previous post that the final conclusion(as told to me by some former and current LE officials) was that the letter was genuine. I am open to the idea that the letter is a fake, not a forgery, which is a paranoid, asinine assertion.

I asked that Ed show me(and the rest of the board) definitive proof that the letter was forged...and more specifically, that Graysmith was behind this so-called forgery. In this case, the onus is on Ed, not me, to substantiate his claim.


Apparently, you have chosen to ignore the reasoning in my previous posts, and the fact that 4 experts stated their opinions that the letter was not authentic. It seems that I will have to dig the stories up and actually quote these experts then...

In "Zodiac Case: Gain Talks About Toschi--'No Evidence' On Letters" (SF Chronicle, 7-18-1978, p. 1), Police Chief Charles Gain is quoted:

In regard to a purported "Zodiac" letter received by The Chronicle on April 24, Gain said there is a "preponderance of evidence based on handwriting analysis" that it is not authentic--but "there is no evidence whatever connecting Toschi to the letter."

"Anyone who had access to Zodiac material could have written the letter," Gain said.


In "Latest Zodiac Letter A Fake, 3 Experts Say" by Duffy Jennings (SF Chronicle, 8-3-1978, pp. 1, 16):

The experts were also asked to compare samples of Toschi's writing and printing with the most recent Zodiac letter.

No evidence to link the inspector with any notes from the killer has been found, Gain said yesterday.


Toschi had nothing to do with the April 78 letter. Please, everyone, put that out of your minds.

Original copies of 15 communications from Zodiac to The Chronicle and other newspapers between 1968 and this year were sent to John Shimoda, head of the postal service crime lab in San Bruno, Terrence Pascoe of the state's questioned documents bureau, and Keith L. Woodward, for 24 years chief of the Los Angeles Police Department's questioned documents section and now in private practice.

It was Shimoda who first certified the April 24 letter as genuine, based on a photocopy shown him by Toschi the day it arrived at The Chronicle.

"Further detailed examination of individual letter formations," Shimoda wrote Gain on July 20, "disclosed the questioned handprinting to be close copies to the hand-printing in the Zodiac letters.

"Based on this new evidence, I am of the opinion that the letter of 4-24-78 was an attempt to duplicate the Zodiac letters and is not authentic," Shimoda wrote.


Sounds like Shimoda is saying it's a forgery to me. Gain is quoted a few paragraphs later:

"But the writing is manufactured by someone that knows a great deal about the background or the Zodiac's MO. They knew every little detail of how he wrote."

In his report to Gain on July 6, Pascoe said the April letter "copied" Zodiac's printing.

Woodward, in a letter to Gain on July 13, said the letter was a "carefully drawn copy ... by a person that had access to the printing of Zodiac."


Sounds like two more experts saying the April 78 letter is a forgery. Three paragraphs later, Gain is referenced once more:

Gain said the letters are still to be scrutinized by one more expert whom he declined to identify.

Four experts looking at the letters (although I don't know who the 4th one was). It was pretty serious stuff, and it is patently obvious to anyone who bothers to read these quotes from the Chronicle that 3 experts said the April 78 letter is a forgery and not simply a fake. Please don't make asinine assertions without evidence to back them up (and quoting nebulous "sources" who cannot be named and whose credentials are unknown doesn't count).

Here's what Andrea McNichol had to say in comparing the "my name is" letter of 4-20-1970 with the forged 4-24-1978 letter (Handwriting Analysis, p. 90):

Sample A is the handwriting of the Zodiac killer. Sample B is the fake.

The clue I hope you spotted is the "Maniac d" in sample A, discussed earlier. Recall that a Maniac d is one where the letter suddenly takes off at an acute angle to the right. It indicates a person who can lose emotional control, who can suddenly go off the deep end. People who exhibit frequent and severely rightward Maniac d's are known to be extremely dangerous.

In Sample A all the d's are maniacally rightward. In sample B we find no maniac d's. The writer of sample B intentionally inclined some of his l's, not realizing that he should have inclined only the d's to simulate the writing of the Zodiac. We conclude the writer of sample B intentionally inclined his l's because a large space precedes them, revealing that he paused to calculate what he would do next and was not writing spontaneously at these points.

Another clue you may have picked up is the increase in the size of the word Zodiac in sample A, indicating that the writer feels big about himself and wants this name to stand out. Since the real Zodiac always signed his name in his notes, in addition to always beginning them with "This is the Zodiac speaking," we can assume he liked calling himself this name.

The writer of sample B, however, wrote the word Editor larger than the word Zodiac, and thus we deduce that what was important to him was that his letter would get to the editor and be published. Instead of emphasizing himself, as the real Zodiac always did, he was giving all the stature and importance to the editor.


Quite revealing. Four experts who have all agreed that the April 78 letter is a forgery (although, to be fair, McNichol does call it a fake rather than a forgery). And, when we consider the following quotes:

"Anyone who had access to Zodiac material could have written the letter," Gain said.

and

"But the writing is manufactured by someone that knows a great deal about the background or the Zodiac's MO. They knew every little detail of how he wrote."

and

Woodward, in a letter to Gain on July 13, said the letter was a "carefully drawn copy ... by a person that had access to the printing of Zodiac."

it is clear that Gain and Woodward were of the opinion that the forger had access to Zodiac material and that he studied his writing in detail. In my previous posts, I showed, using his own words, that Robert Graysmith was the only person outside of law enforcement that we know of who had access to all the Z letters and studied Z's handwriting in detail. Come on, folks, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to put this all together. Is it proof? No, and 29 years later it'll be impossible to prove (although I suspect DNA would do it, but why would SFPD waste money on it?), but it's incredibly damning evidence that came from the typewriter of Graysmith himself. And remember, circumstantial evidence is the only thing that those who believe Allen was Z have to rely on, nothing more. And circumstantial evidence is what got Scott Peterson the death penalty.

The 78 letter is not a simple fake, it is a forgery. You have to ask yourselves who did it and why. I've laid out the evidence and my reasoning for the only man we know of who, in addition to having the means, motive and opportunity, also admitted that he not only could convincingly forge handwriting but that he actually considered doing it!

What it comes down to is, believe what you want. I've written lengthy posts on this matter, only to have them dismissed out of hand in short sentences with nothing but personal opinion to counter my reasoning. You can do better than that, folks.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Kevin
Username: Kevin

Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 7:54 am:   

Ed, I thought your first presentation of the facts was good, but this second round was even better - you presented your case well. "Grayscale is everywhere I look."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bababijan
Username: Bababijan

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 7:57 am:   

At this time, the cheapest way for SFPD to go is to get a warrant to force RG to supply them with DNA samples. Now which judge in his right state of mind would sign such a warrant?

If SFPD tries to get RG's DNA samples unlawfully in order to do the testings, and then leak out the results, it can always be zapped with a law suit on various grounds by RG.

RG can also claim that his DNA was used to taint the letter in order to frame him as the forger of the April 24, 1978, letter. Maybe this trick had already been tried to triger the police scandal after the arrival of this letter.

If SFPD had lawfully linked anyone to this April 1978 letter via DNA testings, rest assured that such results would have been publicized to the hilt for the maximum effect long time ago. SFPD never had anything to go by because there was nothing there to begin with.

Through out years, we have not seen anything to come out of SFPD regarding some sound forensic testings on this letter because SFPD does not like to face the fact that this letter might be as good as that Taxi Driver letter of October 13, 1969.

Come to think of it, SFPD was never in a position to dictate terms to Zodiac when he was officialy active on the record in California because Zodiac proved to be in control of all things until his return with his April 24, 1978, letter.

If I were a police chief for SFPD, I would not think I would call for a strawberry shortcake party to celebrate Zodiac's return.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Warren
Username: Warren

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 8:01 am:   

So, the '78 letter is genuine, then?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bababijan
Username: Bababijan

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 8:07 am:   

Warren, are you going to hold your breath for the "proof" to come from SFPD to show that it is not?

Obviously, no one else is in a position to provide such a proof at this time.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ubpclaw
Username: Ubpclaw

Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 8:28 am:   

I am open to the idea that the letter is a fake, not a forgery, which is a paranoid, asinine assertion.

Exiled, how could the letter be considered a fake but NOT a forgery? Seems to me that the two would go hand in hand
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Yarbchris
Username: Yarbchris

Registered: 9-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 8:45 am:   

Ed, you're saying that SFPD wasn't pointing the finger at Toschi? They never linked him to the forgery, but the implication was there. The comments by Gain and Shimoda are obviously inferring that it was Toschi. Of course the SFPD isn't going to come up with evidence and official charges against Toschi, they already did the necessary damage without the need for additional time and expense. What about Maupin? He's who started the ball rolling with accusations about Toschi. Using your reasoning, one could even say it was Morrill that forged the letter. The whole forgery claim was a political move against Toschi. If not, then why bother reassigning him? This is pure politics in black and white. If you pay any attention to politics you will notice that when an incumbent feels threatened by a subordinate, that subordinate ends up losing his job. This happens time and time again. This whole "forgery" incident was nothing more than an interference maneuver by the administration and a publicity seeking author. Graysmith wasn't even mentioned.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Yarbchris
Username: Yarbchris

Registered: 9-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 9:12 am:   

I was curious what other researchers had to say about the letter, so I thumbed through my copy of a book that wasn't written by Graysmith.

"Only the 1978 Zodiac letter was considered to be controversial by the San Francisco Police Department, and this conclusion was reached prematurely. In the end, most investigators came to accept this letter as authentic."

From the Michael D Kelleher/David Van Nuys book "This is the Zodiac Speaking," p211

It seems the author(s) not only refrain from calling it a forgery but claim it as indeed authentic.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 12:33 pm:   

I think the most damning evidence in favour of Graysmith forging this letter is the mention of Herb Caen and Toschi,and the manner in which the latter is referred to i.e "That he is good".
This seems to mirror earlier forgeries that Toschi himself was responsible for.
All other evidence aside it is a startling coincidence that Graysmith having "solved" the 340 cipher, which he did not (in which those two names pop up)should again pop up in much the same manner in this dubious letter, and in the same context.
Then again, this letter was used for the first DNA test.First they said it was Allen and then changed their minds. It was then decided to take the second test elsewhere.Makes you wonder how any DNA can be relied upon until there are other ones that show a match!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Yarbchris
Username: Yarbchris

Registered: 9-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 1:51 pm:   

>I think the most damning evidence in favour of Graysmith forging this letter is the mention of Herb Caen and Toschi,and the manner in which the latter is referred to i.e "That he is good".
This seems to mirror earlier forgeries that Toschi himself was responsible for.

Then wouldn't that point to Toschi as the forger? That the letter mentions Caen and Toschi is hardly evidence pointing to Graysmith, much less "damning evidence."

>All other evidence aside it is a startling coincidence that Graysmith having "solved" the 340 cipher, which he did not (in which those two names pop up)should again pop up in much the same manner in this dubious letter, and in the same context.

That is the first suggestion I've heard that was actually able to plant a seed of doubt. I'm not convinced that Graysmith forged the letter, but I like the way you think.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Douglas_oswell
Username: Douglas_oswell

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 2:48 pm:   

It is odd, though, that the letter is almost completely derivative, i.e., contains only elements comprising the common perceptions of Zodiac, and nothing more. In fact, those perceptions seem confined to the ones particularly promoted by Graysmith. In fact, they're mostly misperceptions, such as the notion that Zodiac had it in for Herb Caen or Inspector Toschi. As Sean points out, the only place you'll find that notion is in Graysmith's "solution" to the 340.

The reproduction of the Stine letter in the Time book is also suspicious. It's obviously a fake, and what's more, it appears that the fake ran in the October 15, 1969 issue of the San Francisco Chronicle. This is borne out by the fact that both the Time and Chronicle photos consist of the same segment of the Stine letter enclosed within a hand-drawn, jagged border. I can't say who on the Chronicle would have tried to reproduce the writing, but Graysmith was there at the time, and supposedly hard-by. And since Graysmith has been the undoubted authority on Zodiac, we can justly speculate that he was the source of the Time series photos.

Incidentally, and unrelated, that hand-drawn border puts me in mind of the punch-hole border around the Pines Card. Did Zodiac perhaps spot the fakery himself?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bababijan
Username: Bababijan

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 3:22 pm:   

Doug, will you be kind enough to provide a brief background details about this pines card referred in your post.

A link to see the actual card is even better if possible. Thank you.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Douglas_oswell
Username: Douglas_oswell

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 3:34 pm:   

I guess Tom doesn't have a copy here, but Howard has a reasonably good one at his site, along with an explanation of its provenance.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Yarbchris
Username: Yarbchris

Registered: 9-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 4:13 pm:   

http://zodiackiller.com/PinesCard.html
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 4:27 pm:   

Bobo: what's the point of testing Graysmith's DNA against the 78 letter? They couldn't even be bothered to test Z's DNA until Primetime did their Z segment! Nor have they bothered to test mtDNA on the hair they found under the stamp. Besides, the case is officially closed.

Warren: the April 78 letter is a forgery. I've presented the opinions of 4 different experts who are in agreement that it is.

YC: SFPD initially thought Toschi was the culprit based on Maupin's accusation. Maupin was correct that Toschi wrote him fan mail in 1976, but, as Gain said, "there is no evidence whatever connecting Toschi to the letter." I agree that the removal of Toschi from homicide was political in nature, and I suspect someone wanted him out for a long time, but had no good reason to remove him. The April 78 letter and Maupin's accusation fell right into the lap of SFPD and that someone (no idea who) used it to great effect. As Graysmith himself said (Zodiac, p. 218):

If it were a forgery, no one outside of the police investigation could produce such a perfect copy, incorporating information never before released. For a jealous insider the motive would be to discredit Toschi. But the forger would have no way of knowing that the letter would ever be found false.

He makes a very good point. How does someone forge Z's writing so well that it fools one expert, but the forger incorporated elements to make it look like a good forgery so that it would be discovered and declared a forgery by 4 other experts?

Of course Graysmith wasn't mentioned, he was some schmuck starting to write a book and I bet no one other than Toschi knew he had access to the Z files and that he had copies of all the letters. For a long time now, my opinion has been that Graysmith forged it, but had not anticipated it being discovered as such; the unintended consequences were that his good buddy Toschi lost his job and had his reputation destroyed because of it, and it also made Morrill look like a fool. However, I have changed my opinion as to the reason he forged it: I originally thought it was to keep Z in the public eye in anticipation of his then-upcoming book, which would help boost sales and make him lots of money. Considering we now know that he lied (surprise, surprise) about discovering Allen on 3-2-1980 and that it was in fact 2 years earlier, it makes it far more likely that the forgery was intended to frame Allen ("I am back with you," as if he'd been somewhere, such as jail for raping two young boys, perhaps?). Also, Kelleher and Van Nuys would appear to have heavily relied on Graysmith and assumed his research was accurate (as did we all at one point).

Sean: good point, I'd neglected to mention that. The fact that not only the forged April 1978 letter but Graysmith's false 1979 "solution" to the 340-cipher both mention Caen and Toschi is pretty suspicious. Why would Z bother to mention either of them in the 340-cipher? Prior to Z mailing that cipher, I found only 2 mentions (so far) of Toschi in the Examiner (none in the Chronicle, interestingly enough), so why would Z zero in on him and not another cop? I don't think Caen even wrote about Z prior to the 1970's, so why was he mentioned in Graysmith's false 340 "solution"? Really makes one wonder about the forged 78 letter then, doesn't it? Especially when we consider that Caen had written about Z by that time, and that Graysmith was good buddies with Toschi as well...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 4:36 pm:   

Ed, please quit namecalling.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 5:58 pm:   

Let's continue this discussion here.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration