Fingerprint Evidence, Continued
Zodiackiller.com Message Board: General Zodiac Discussion: Fingerprint Evidence, Continued
|By Jake (Jake) (spider-tk013.proxy.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Wednesday, October 18, 2000 - 07:18 pm:|
"It's just hard for me to believe the guy would have left prints on his letters."
I've gotten the impression (no pun intended) from some of the FBI files of 1991 that an attempt was made to match all the possible Zodiac prints against each other, and that none of them could be linked to any of the others. Now, I'm not certain that this is what happened -- those files are illegible at times, and the one at issue here is pretty fuzzy. What is visible, though, is the statement "Comparable areas of unidentified latent prints previously reported on items from different crime scenes, as well as latent prints on different envelopes and letters, were compared with each other but no identifications affected" (Report of the Identification Division, Latent Fingerprint Section, 2/21/74, p27/28 of APB's .pdf file #14). It doesn't say anything anywhere about any prints matching any others, which is a potential argument that none of the prints really belonged to Z after all.
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."
|By Peterh (Peterh) (18.104.22.168) on Wednesday, October 18, 2000 - 11:20 pm:|
"No identifications affected [sic]": aside from the bad spelling, what did they expect from comparison of unidentifiable prints? Of course no identifications were effected. GIGO. They likely really meant that no _matches_ were identified ("effected"). Which means that _none_ of the Z acts -- crimes or writing -- have been linked by prints. Which means in turn that none of the prints are necessarily Z's, which means in turn that the supposition that Z is someone with no record prints is unfounded. Ergo, therefore, henceforth and consequently, Z -- or any of the perps of the attributed Z attacks -- could be someone with recorded prints, but who never left one at a scene or on a letter. Like A
|By Jake (Jake) (spider-tj083.proxy.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Thursday, October 19, 2000 - 04:18 pm:|
"Which means in turn that none of the prints are necessarily Z's, which means in turn that the supposition that Z is someone with no record prints is unfounded."
It's not a solid foundation, but it's not an impossibility, either. After all, someone left those prints, and whoever it was had no prints on record. Unfortunately, very little has been released on the validity of these prints except the obvious fact that Vallejo and SF thought that they were likely enough to be Z's that they were used to check against hundreds of suspects.
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."
|By Hurley (Hurley) (spider-tm022.proxy.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Saturday, October 21, 2000 - 04:52 pm:|
Is there enough evidence available to know if the Zodiac was right or left handed? The palm print on the receiver could suggest it.
|By Sandy (Sandy) (c531918-a.ptbrg1.sfba.home.com - 188.8.131.52) on Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 02:44 pm:|
It is my understanding that the palm print on the receiver was too wet, and was smudged by the dusting. I was also told, that they didn't know if it was a left or right palm print. Zodiac is ambidextrous, Allen and Kane are also.Only one of my four suspects,would not have prints on file.I have seen him with Kane and one other suspect.Please correct me if I am wrong, I would like to know for sure. Thanks, Sandy
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-mtc-tl061.proxy.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Thursday, November 08, 2001 - 04:03 pm:|
It seems rather obvious, at least to me. Nobody, SFPD, RPD, VPD, Napa, FBI, CIA, or otherwise, has a set of Z's prints on file. The most logical conclusion is probably the most likely, as the adage goes . . . none of the prints on record that are "believed" to be "possible" Z prints actually belonged to Z. If they did, we would have our man; most likely, Arthur Leigh Allen. Or, as Peter so eloquently phrased it, "Ergo, therefore, henceforth and consequently, Z -- or any of the perps of the attributed Z attacks -- could be someone with recorded prints, but who never left one at a scene or on a letter. Like A"
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-mtc-th011.proxy.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Thursday, November 08, 2001 - 09:23 pm:|
Yeah, I know it had been a year since anyone had posted on this thread, that's exactly
why I couldn't resist.
What if I attempted to revive this thread by asking the question, How many people believe that any of the agencies involved in the Z case actually has/had a set of Z's prints?
I'll start the vote with me: No, I do not believe that any agency of any kind has ever possessed a set of Zodiac's fingerprints. Any other voters out there?
By the way, IMHO, the Napa print on the phone doesn't count because it was rendered useless by the lab tech. And yes, for those who don't know, I'm fully aware of the prints obtained at PH and the prints taken from the envelopes and letters as well. I still feel that none of them belonged to Z. What do you think?
|By H.J. Nelson (Hjnelson) (66-81-75-11-modem.o1.com - 18.104.22.168) on Thursday, November 08, 2001 - 10:43 pm:|
Based on the research that was done for Howard's book I totally agree that there were NO legitimate prints ever left by Z.
|By Howard Davis (Howard) (ont-cvx1-196.linkline.com - 22.214.171.124) on Friday, November 09, 2001 - 01:04 am:|
The number one candidate is the S.F. 10/11/69 cab prints("in blood") due to angle based on sighted activity by the three teens-both before and after the act of murder in which blood was shed.
And number two is possibly the partial palm print on Excorcist note and again, possibly based on travel and angle linked to known activity which obviously, in this case,is writing!If there is no match at some point in the near/far future ,then Jim Nelsons statement comes to full manifestation!
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (22.philadelphia01rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 126.96.36.199) on Friday, November 09, 2001 - 03:55 am:|
The FBI report didn't state that the prints were "in blood" but only that they showed traces of blood.
|By Jake (Jake) (spider-wa032.proxy.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Friday, November 09, 2001 - 12:48 pm:|
Maybe we should define our terms. There are two questions at hand:
Does any agency have one or more prints believed to be Zodiac's? (Yes.)
Does any agency have a complete set of prints from the Zodiac filed under a citizen's name? (No.)
|By Howard Davis (Howard) (dsl-gte-10407-2.linkline.com - 184.108.40.206) on Friday, November 09, 2001 - 03:29 pm:|
I wasn't quoting from that report.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (72.philadelphia08rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 220.127.116.11) on Friday, November 09, 2001 - 03:53 pm:|
Howard, no doubt you were quoting from Graysmith. But the FBI report expresses the opinion of the SFPD as to the nature of the prints, which, in my opinion, is more important than any speculation made by Graysmith.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-td041.proxy.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Friday, November 16, 2001 - 03:11 am:|
Jake wrote: "Does any agency have one or more prints believed to be Zodiac's?
The key word there is "believed." There's a huge difference between believing and knowing. I don't believe that any agency has one or more prints which belong to Zodiac. However, I do not know that for certain. See how huge the gap between the two really is? IMHO, an agency saying that they "believe" to have one or more of Z's prints is a lot closer to saying that said agency doesn't have them than if they were to say, we "know" we have a set of Z's prints. I don't know, perhaps I'm being too pessimistic.