Who forged the April 1978 letter? Part 2 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Zodiackiller.com Message Board » Zodiac Letters » Unconfirmed Zodiac Letters » Who forged the April 1978 letter? Part 2 « Previous Next »

Author Message
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 - 5:57 pm:   

Continued from here.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - 5:37 am:   

Ed,
I don't think it's a question of him mentioning Toschi as opposed to some other cop, but that he would zero in on him at all.
Zodiac only addressed two other people in his letters, Belli and Avery. I would exclude the mention of Belli because the circumstances were different. The Avery card (halloween)came in the form of a threat and he refused to spell his name correctly. I don't see Zodiac sharing the limelight, by even mentioning Toschi, not to mind setting him up as being an equal (almost) capable of disrupting his plans or being "good" enough to do so.
For me, that's somebody elses thinking.
Curious also that there was a later letter (to the vallejo times in 1987) that was also a hoax and also contained the names of Caen and Toschi.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Warren
Username: Warren

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - 7:44 am:   

Ed, I was being facetious. I think your's is the best analysis of the letter's provenance.

BTW, leave Baba alone, he's going to catch the Lindberg perp, I tell ya.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bababijan
Username: Bababijan

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - 8:05 am:   

Sean, do you suppose RG wrote that 1987 letter too?

Warren, No. 1 ceased to exist on Sharon Tate's 43rd birthday anniversary.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - 8:29 am:   

I really don't know baba, but it wasn't Zodiac.
I stand to be corrected but wasn't Graysmith's first book published in 87 (or was it 85). If the former it adds a little more to the mix don't you think?
I believe (given as much information as we have) that these letters are forgeries.It then becomes a question of who was responsible.Graysmith/Toschi/both??? Then again perhaps we are just commenting on our limited knowledge of the players, just like we are doomed to comment on the available suspects in this case.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bababijan
Username: Bababijan

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - 6:16 pm:   

Sean, when we took the task of trying to unmask Zodiac, was it not reasonably clear that we have to waft through police crumbs and reports by flyby operators from news media?

It is going to be a lot easier for me to sit here and look at this letter and that card and go with the flow and call them forgeries. Ignore potential Zodiac cases such as Bates murder or Gaul-Sharp homicides.

If I do it, then why bother to be here? I can still go to Central Park to fly a kite or go to Sheepshead Bay for flounder fishing.

I am not doing Z search because it is fun. I am doing it because it is a right thing to do.

If the info is not readily available, there are many ways for me to get them. Since Zodiac is not playing it nice, why should I?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - 10:49 pm:   

Zodiac was published in April 1986, which was plenty of time for a (I won't even say forger, since the 87 letter is obviously a fake, not a forgery) crank to write a letter for fun.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bababijan
Username: Bababijan

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2007 - 9:05 am:   

To show Robert Graysmith did not and could not be the writer of April 24, 1978, letter, I have made a comparision between three Zodiacally challenged correspondences with "Jack The Ripper" letters.

Jack The Ripper used "yours truly" in his "Dear Boss" letter of September 25, 1888. See the links below:

http://www.casebook.org/images/dearboss1_big.jpg
http://www.casebook.org/images/dearboss2_big.jpg

The "Dear Boss" letter was received by Central News Agency on September 27, 1888.

Similarly, in letter of April 24, 1978, the writer used "yours truly" all in lowercase. See the link below:

http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/hoaxes.html

Jack The Ripper used "catch me when you can" in his "From Hell" letter of October 16, 1988. See the link below:

http://www.casebook.org/images/lusk_big.jpg

In Halloween letter of 1987, the writer used "catch me if they can. See the link below:

http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/hoaxes.html

Celebrity Cypher card was postmarked on September 25, 1990, which was recieved by Vallejo Times-Herald on September 27, 1990.

Sandy's threads are gone so I can not link it there in order to see an image of that card, which was posted by Vallejo Dave. However, let us hope that Vallejo Dave can come to rescue once again. Of course, with Sandy's and Tom's permissions.

The mailing of Celbrity Cypher was magically timed to coincide with 102nd anniversary of "Dear Boss" letter.

The arrival of Celebrity Cypher magically coincided with 102nd anniversary of the arrival of "Dear Boss" letter at Central News Agency. It also magically coincided with 21st anniversary of Lake Berryessa attack.

In Halloween letter of 1987, the word "is" was left out in line 2. Also, the word "they" was left out in line 5.

By applying Zodiac mathemagic, the cryptic clue of "THEY" can be numeralized as 58, which can then be cracked as ZODIAC. Similarly, the cryptic clue of "IS" can be numeralized as "28," which can be reversed as "82," which can then be cracked as "1 LAWRENCE." Finally, the cryptic numeric clue of 102 can be cracked as "PUNCH HOLE."

Here is a link to the samples of Lawrence (Larry) Kane's handwritings: http://www.zodiackiller.com/KaneWriting.html

In the last line, Larry Kane cryptically spelled "always" as "alway." As one can see, the letter "S" was cryptically left out.

You can find my complete analysis of Larry Kane's handwritings at http://groups.msn.com/zodiacnetwork

Robert Graysmith was never accused of forging either Halloween letter of 1987 or Celebrity Cypher of September 25, 1990. However, rest assured that things can change swiftly and drastically. For an escape goat is always necessary for SFPD to explain away certain Zodiacally challenged correspondences. The closing of the Z case should give anyone a hint that SFPD was never into cracking this Zodiac case because they simply did not want to try hard enough.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2007 - 3:22 pm:   

This is all totally irrelevant. WTF do JTR's alleged letters have to do with a Z forgery 9 decades later? Nothing. And no one is accusing Graysmith of forging any other letters, so just drop it. Larry Kane has nothing to do with Z other than through the wild, baseless claims of Harvey Hines and his sloppy and highly questionable "detective" work. So forget that too, I'm not interested in it.

I suggest you come up with something besides your usual inane and pointless ramblings, Baba. We're focusing on the April 78 letter, I've laid out my arguments in favor of Graysmith forging it, and I have yet to see anyone dispute my findings with anything rational, concrete or relevant that is more than just some baseless personal opinion. Give me something factual that you can prove, such as, "Robert Graysmith was in Fiji from 1977-1979, so it's impossible for him to have forged the letter. See, here's his passport to prove it!" Come on, folks, you can do better than what I've seen so far. And Baba, no more of your garbage, give me something factual and concrete; my findings are based on the opinions of 4 graphological experts, police chief Gain (after all, he was there and right in the middle of things) and, most importantly, the very writings and admissions of the man who, in my opinion and based on the evidence, forged the April 78 letter. I don't give a damn about your irrelevant opinion and neither does anyone else. Either answer any of my points in favor of Graysmith forging the letter using facts, or do not post your garbage in this thread again. It's as simple as that.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bababijan
Username: Bababijan

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2007 - 4:17 pm:   

Tom, adult supervision is needed. Please adjucate as you deem fit.

Ed, suppose I come up with some more stuff to post in order to show that Robert Graysmith could not possibly be the forger of this April 24, 1978, letter, as you wishfully want it to be, then how are you going to stop me?

I have no problem to get along with the webmaster of this site. Even if he gives me the word not to post at his most celeberated digital bin, it would still be ok with me because I am convinced that he figures a lot in this Z case.

But what about you? What have you done for this Z case besides name callings and falsely accusing RG of being the forger of a letter, which he had nothing to do with it? Am I wrong to assume that your wings were clipped due to your rampant irrational behaviour? Did your timely wing clippings give folks a chance to see my posts instead of them getting deleted within minutes after being posted?

Are you pushing your luck now just to see if your beak can also be plucked too? Even someone like Tom can run out of patience.

PS: You wrote: "I don't give a damn about your irrelevant opinion and neither does anyone else." Show me your "proof" that you had full authority to speak on behalf of every message board member, including its webmaster. Or, should I just ignore you and leave you in your cramped-up sand box? I think I am going to just do that from now on. The same way I had been ignoring you in the chat room.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2007 - 5:41 pm:   

Baba, post something relevant instead of whining, please.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_kelleher
Username: Mike_kelleher

Registered: 2-2007
Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2007 - 11:05 pm:   

I would like to add a few comments to this thread.

First, handwriting analysis is anything but an exact science. It is very much subject to human interpretation. In the best of circumstances, this kind of analysis is done with little or no reference to non-exemplar considerations, such as case status, political environment, etc. In reality, these considerations, commonly called "context," make up a part of any analysis. It's our nature as humans to consider them, even when we try not to. Therefore, when an analysis makes an "inclusion" or "exclusion," these results should not be taken as absolute values. They are indicators, no more and no less. Consider the context at the time of the several analyses of the April 1978 letter. It helps to shed some light on the results.

Second, sociopathic letter-writers, like Zodiac, are urged or compelled to write by motives that are usually identifiable and remain fairly consistent over time. In other words, they write for a reason and this reason can usually be uncovered, with enough work. If the April 1978 letter is considered not to be written by Zodiac, then these consistencies will not be in evidence. Anyone with a good mind and a little effort can make this decision for himself or herself. Take a look at all known Zodiac correspondence, why it was written, and then look carefully at the two weeks prior to the April 1978 letter. Look at the news reports, Chronicle especially, then study the City climate (political and social). This will help you come to a conclusion on your own as to whether or not this could be a genuine letter or a fake. While doing this examination, remember that not all Zodiac letters or communications were (or are) known. More were written than discovered, as should be obvious to anyone who knows the case and follows the letters closely.

As a side note, do not rely on any alleged DNA testing regarding this letter.No definitive DNA results were ever gathered or compared from this letter to later letters that were tested for the Primtime telecast. I know this because I was heavily involved in that telecast and the research that went into it. Perhaps Tom can clarify this issue. As far as I know, no lab comparisons were ever made, despite notations that may infer otherwise. If so, I have yet to see any lab results published. If these are available, it may put a quick end to this discussion. I, for one, would love to see such evidence.

Finally, I suppose that Graysmith-bashing is the sport of our times. However, to accuse him of forging letters is, in my opinion, way beyond what is reasonable. To take his various statement fragments, inconsistent as they may be, and create a case for forgery is just not justified. This kind of freshman debate strategy does not advance the Zodiac case and serves only as a distraction from the main purpose of keeping the case alive in the first place. It reminds me of the days when everyone thought Zodiac was some kind of magical, mystical genius. Fortunately, most folks now realize that he was not. However, it appears that Graysmith has taken Zodiac's place as the evil genius behind some nefarious plot to cloud the case. If one really cares about the case, try to move it forward with new facts and pertinent theories, not conspiracy theories spun from whole cloth. Graysmith made mistakes, I made them (and still do), and so do the folks who post on this board. It would be better for everyone if this kind of energy was turned to making ground on the case rather than trying to bury all those who have made mistakes over the years. God knows, the mound would be enormous!

Mike
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Exiled
Username: Exiled

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2007 - 11:22 pm:   

Thank you Mr. Kelleher, I hope this will now put an end(once and for all) to this Graysmith as a forgerer/badguy nonsense.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2007 - 11:26 pm:   

Mike, great post.

According to Yellow Book's blue book, Arthur Leigh Allen's DNA was indeed compared to the DNA taken from the April 1978 letter. The date given for the negative result was Feb. 14, 1997.

I guess it's possible that SFPD was so high on Allen that they immediately ruled the letter a hoax due to the non match. However, to me it seems far more likely they continued the comparisons...and eventually found a match to someone they knew wasn't the Zodiac.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_kelleher
Username: Mike_kelleher

Registered: 2-2007
Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2007 - 11:29 pm:   

Well, Tom, I was aware of what Graysmith wrote about that issue. What I would really like to see are some lab reports. I think that would be more objective and could resolve the issue. However, as far as I can tell, there are no such reports. If you are aware of this kind of evidence, I would sure like to hear about it.

Take care,
Mike
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2007 - 11:31 pm:   

Mike, the only documentation I have is this report, which I was given in 1999 by an SFPD lieutenant.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_kelleher
Username: Mike_kelleher

Registered: 2-2007
Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2007 - 11:41 pm:   

Tom, that was the report I was referring to in my first post. When Harry and I worked on the special, nothing was compared between the 1978 letter and the "over the transom" letters that Holt worked on. So, you see the problem? It's one of verification in my mind. I'm skeptical of any alleged DNA from the 1978 letter without some independent verification, preferably by way of lab reports. I think these would have surfaced during the Primetime build-up, but they did not.

Mike

Mike
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2007 - 11:48 pm:   

Mike, I don't believe the April 1978 letter ever was compared to confirmed Zodiac letters. By the time Zodiac's partial DNA profile had been obtained in late 2002, a match had already been found for the source of the April 1978 letter.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_kelleher
Username: Mike_kelleher

Registered: 2-2007
Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2007 - 11:57 pm:   

Well, Tom, then there should be a lab report or two floating around somewhere. If a match was made, where is the report? Was it kept under wraps? If so, why? Would the terminally-cheap SFPD lab work several (or many) rounds of RFLP (or whatever technique) and then bury the report? How about the "leaky ship" SFPD lab? We've both been the beneficiary of the fact that they can't keep a secret for more than about two minutes.

You see my point here? If there is a match, it's one of the great secrets of life. Or, is there no match at all? SFPD dismissed the letter as a fake but at what point did this really happen? After several rounds of DNA testing? Before?

Lots of questions. It's pretty easy to start making assumptions about this whole issue and I think that's where we all get into trouble again and again on this case. For my two cents, I want to see a lab report or two. Failing that, I simply do not have the confidence in SFPD or the SFPD lab as only evidenced by the document you referenced. SFPD just does not have the kind of credibility with me.

So, I leave you with this thought: where's the beef?

Take care,
Mike
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Yarbchris
Username: Yarbchris

Registered: 9-2006
Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2007 - 11:57 pm:   

What DNA exemplars are being compared in that report? What criteria are they using to rule the letter out? The source of DNA, especially on a letter, may not necessarily point to the author. The report does not make any explanation. Again, for DNA to be reliable evidence, certain factors have to be in place. DNA is only the final authority when it is used correctly.

The whole questioning of the April 1978 letter was a ruse to defame Toschi, who Gains and others thought was getting too big for his britches. The ruse was sparked by the claims of Maupin, who was seeking publicity for his new book. If that wasn't Maupin's intent, why wait to accuse the man? It was about politics and publicity. If it wasn't for the department making the move they did, we wouldn't even be discussing the authenticity, much less the forgery, of the letter. Nothing with any meaningful foundation has been shown to rule this letter a forgery. Even the expert analysis was tainted by rumors and innuendo, if not outright pressure from superiors.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 12:02 am:   

Mike, you make several very good points. I'd like to state here for the record that I'm not bashing Graysmith, I'm trying to get to the truth. If it appears that way, then so be it.

I imagine Graysmith made legitimate mistakes. However, there are instances where he made claims that he knew were simply not true, and there is a difference; many are documented here, here and here.

I understand that graphology is inexact and subject to opinion, but when one has the opinions of 4 versus 1 who is saying just the opposite, well... is it possible for 4 to be wrong? After reading McNichol's analysis and seeing for my own eyes the various points indicative of forgery, I find it hard to accept that it could be genuine.

As to Z being compelled to write... he took a big break from March 1971 to January 1974, and assuming the disputed letters are genuine, then he took another break from July 1974 to April 1978... and, near as we can tell, never wrote again. I have to ask, if he was compelled to write... I don't see much of a compulsion after January 1974, to be quite honest. Doug Oswell made some very good points about the contents of the April 78 letter here, which would seem to be at odds with the political and social climate of SF at that time. Actually, not even at odds, but really having nothing to do with anything current at all.

I don't see myself as having taken fragments of Graysmith's statements (and certainly not out of context) just to bash him and accuse him of forgery just for fun. Quite the contrary, all of the statements I quoted are quite relevant to the matter at hand, and all deal with the same thing: Z's writing, Graysmith's obvious and self-admitted in-depth study of it, and what is, in the opinion of the majority of the experts we know of who have rendered an opinion on this matter, a letter that was forged by someone with inside knowledge of the Z case.

I don't see Graysmith as some evil genius trying to cloud the case, I see him as an opportunist who tried to cash in on a case that he wanted to solve. It's not like he wrote an open-ended book that just detailed the case and had no ending, he wrote it specifically with one suspect in mind, and, in that context, it makes that letter appear to be just what I have suggested: an attempt to frame Allen for crimes Graysmith believed he committed.

Maybe I'm wrong, and yes, I've made mistakes too, but if I'm right... it really changes everything we thought we knew about a certain political cartoonist, doesn't it?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 12:10 am:   

Mike, I see your point. However, we're talking about the same department that saw fit to store Paul Stine's shirt in a rumpled paper sack...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Douglas_oswell
Username: Douglas_oswell

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 3:38 am:   

On the other hand, would Graysmith have produced such a clumsy forgery?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Douglas_oswell
Username: Douglas_oswell

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 4:22 am:   

I should say this, too, about Graysmith: It's one thing to make mistakes; it's quite another to continually perpetuate not only those mistakes, but outright fabrications as well. If Graysmith is getting lambasted here he has only himself to blame. Because the media considers him the absolute authority on all things Zodiac, he bears a responsibility to ensure that his campaign of misinformation, designed to pin the Zodiac crimes on Arthur Allen, is no longer perpetuated through the media. The fact that he shows no interest in doing so, to my mind, renders him a fit subject for criticism, and even speculation regarding his integrity, harsh as that may seem.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bababijan
Username: Bababijan

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 6:10 am:   

Doug, did it ever cross your mind that maybe RG had finally realized his shortcomings at some point during the course of his Z work, but he had decided to just ignore the ones that did not fit his agenda?

Just because he is not here to defend himself when he is routinely and maliciously being accused as the forger of April 24, 1978, letter, then does that make RG guilty as accused merely because of his absence to participate in this great Zodiac forgery drama?

You never heard about stories in which the witnesses changed their tall tales thus making the reporting news outlets look real bad?

RG was a political cartoonist. He was not an skilled investigative reporter. Just because RG is well-known in Z circle of things, we should not expect him to be someone like Wayne Barrett of Village Voice. He is not.

Every Zodiologist has a right to seek the truth in this Z case. Just because RG made certain errors willfully or not, it should not give anyone the green light to go ahead and falsely accuse him of forging a potential Zodiac letter without backing up such outrageous claims with "proof."

As Mike Kelleher summed it up, "Where is the beef?" I have come up with my own too. Here it is: "Proof anyone?"
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_r
Username: Mike_r

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 8:59 am:   

Hi-

The issue of the authenticity of this letter has never lit a fire in me but...

I have to make a phone call on this isuse. However, I personally know of someone who has excellent credibility that knows that Toschi's name quietly came up with respect to the 1978 letter in the late 1990s. Alan Keel spoke to this man and there was an offer of an unsealed letter from Toschi being sent to SFPD's lab to be compared to something, and that "something" was presumably DNA from the 1978 letter.

The offer to submit the letter was ultimately declined by SFPD but there was talk in those days of effecting such a comparison. Why it came up if there was no DNA from the letter, I don't know.

Mike
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bababijan
Username: Bababijan

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 10:20 am:   

Hello Mike:

Let us review some of the events which could have happened.

1. The letter arrived at SF Chronicle. Someone might have opened it. Thus, leaving prints on the envelope and the letter.

2. The letter was eventually sent to SFPD. It did not matter how many more police officials handled the envelope and the letter. The most important issue was, "Did Toschi ever personally examine the letter and the envelope without wearing protective gloves?"

3. If Toschi ever touched the letter and the envelope for any reason, then how could anyone use the DNA results to pin it on Toschi?

4. Is there any wonder as to why SFPD never charged Toschi as the forger of the letter?

Finally, as Dr. Davis recently pointed out in his clever post, where the hell is the mailing envelope of this dreaded letter that Robert Graysmith had allegedly forged? Why not publicized it if it was a fake?

Instead of trying to pin this letter on RG, we have to try to get the basic evidence on this letter, which we do not have yet.

In simple English, without that mailing envelope, half of the evidence is still missing in this case. So how can anyone jump into a jerky conclusion by trying to pin this letter on RG? Case in point, just look at the mailing envelope (http://www.zodiacmurders.com/ch9_envelope.html) for the Channel 9 letter of May 2, 1978 (http://www.zodiackiller.com/NewZLetter2.html).

Is there any wonder as to why RG was not pinned for this Zodiacally challenged letter of May 2, 1978? Instead of searching for the phantom DNA results, are we not better off looking for the mailing envelope for the April 24, 1978, before taking off with tall tales as to how RG had means and motives to forge this letter?

If RG did forge it, then would it not be more beneficial to his case to print a copy of the mailing envelope for this letter in his Zodiac book too? Would that not lead to a million more book sale? Maybe even an immediate contract with Hollyweird for a Zodiac movie? Just a couple of stray thoughts from my wandering mind.

As far as I can see it, RG just published the letter in his Zodiac book because that was all he had from his SFPD source or Chronicle source. I can be wrong. So what?

I sincerely hope for some useful contribution from you for this thread because it is much needed. I hope my posts may put you in the right track.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_r
Username: Mike_r

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 10:57 am:   

Hi Mr. Bijan-

I can't immerse myself in the discussion about RG and the 1978 letter because I have nothing by way of evidence to discuss one way or the other.

As for your statements about the 1978 letter and Toschi, I see your points. If he ever handled the letter, finding his DNA on it would not be of much value, unless the lab used a very discriminating technique for extracting the DNA only from selective areas that were not subject to being touched in everyday situations. Even then, it would be a crapshoot to prove anything.

BTW, you have tangentially hit upon the serious problem of exogenous DNA most likely being present on the Zodiac letters and...the need to test multiple letters to rule out such contamination. After all, these letters were probably passed around between detectives and various "experts" (and non-experts) when they first arrived in the 1960s and 1970s.

Mike
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 1:32 pm:   

I've certainly made a mistake here.While Iam still inclined to believe this letter is a fake My belief that Graysmith(or at least someone close)may have been responsible,was based on the date Graysmith "solved" the 340.
My error, I thought this was before this letter arrived, when in actual fact it was the following year,1979.
I had concluded that the solution would only have been circulated to a limited number of people.
That this letter would have followed that solution
and that same would mention Caen and Toschi(with Zodiac never having mentioned them before) in almost the same context was highly improbable in my view.
In others words ,it would have meant that Greaysmith "solved" the 340 in 76/77 and Zodiac would happen to write the following year with those same names seemed a huge coincidence.In any case, I was wrong.

On the DNA issue, for what it's worth, I did get it from an independent source that Graysmith's account was accurate enough!(Though not in those terms)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bababijan
Username: Bababijan

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 7:28 am:   

I was not able to find Sandy Betts threads because they were relocated.

If you wish to see an image of "Celebrity Cypher" card, go here: http://www.zodiackiller.com/discus/messages/27/212 .html?1149725158

Look for Vallejo Dave's post on June 6, 2006, at 10:18 am.

In that thread, I also contributed several posts while disguising myself as "Curious Cat" in order to avoid having my posts deleted within a few minutes after going online.

Sean, man is born to err in order to perfect itself. I have my respect for you because you are a man of character.

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Post as "Anonymous"
Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

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