ZODIAC'S HAND PRINTING, PART II
Zodiackiller.com Message Board: General Zodiac Discussion: ZODIAC'S HAND PRINTING, PART II
|By Mike (Mike) (spider-tl011.proxy.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Saturday, December 30, 2000 - 08:41 am:|
For those of you who read my previous posting about Z's hand printing and were not impressed because it doesn't seem to have any practical application to the case, I have decided to share one more thing that occurred to me as I examined his varions signatures. I believe that the implications to the case are both quite clear and quite important, if I am correct in this observation.
As I stated in my previous posting, a glaring exception to the pattern of Z writing his "signature circles" starting at the "1 o'clock" position is the signature of the 11/69 Pen Card. At the end of that missive is a crossed circle that is inarguably different from the norm. It begins and ends at about "7 o'clock" (i.e., just past the "6 o'clock" position).
Upon viewing that particular signature, one thing became obvious to me: If you turn the card upside-down, the signature is the same as most of the others, essentially a "1 o'clock" circle. So I asked myself, "Why would Z do this? Is there a reason for this clear deviation from the norm? Why would he want me to look at this signature upside-down?" So I did the obvious and closely examined the card in an inverted position. What I found has potentially staggering implications.
The one thing that stood out when I turned the card on its head were the exclamation points at the end of the text. There are six of them. As I looked at them, it became clear to me that there were definite (and seemingly intentional) variations in them, and that they obviously took some effort to produce in that manner. There are, in order, a line, three stippled dots in a triangle, and two heavy dots side by side. These were not, I submit, drawn by chance in that pattern. Viewed from left to right, they read (one) line, (three) dots and (two) heavy dots. Thus the pattern is
I began to search my memory for some implication of the number "132" to the Z case. It didn't take but a second for me to grab for Graysmith's book and open it up to the section on an incident which I had long doubted--the abduction of Kathleen Johns. She was not abducted until March 1970, a full 4 months AFTER this card was sent to the Chron! Where exactly was she abducted? On HIGHWAY 132 in Modesto!!
IF this is a foreshadowing of the fact that SOMETHING important was going to occur in the future that would be somehow associated with the number 132, it seems to confirm that Johns may actually have been abducted by Z. This is despite all of the holes in her story. There are clearly some very important implications to the Johns story, should it indeed be true: First, she confirmed that, despite all the doubt that has been raised over the years, the kids from SF DID get the sketch right (Z himself actually confirmed this when he said in the 11/9/69 letter that he looked like the sketch when he "did his thing".) Johns, as you may recall, said that Z was a dead ringer for the 1969 SFPD sketch. Secondly, Z was apprently not "6' to 6'2", 250 lbs.", but of a more normal height and weight (5'9", 160 lbs, or so, according to Johns' description, which again matches that of the kids from SF). Thirdly, Z APPEARED to Johns to be around 30 (although that speaks only to how old he LOOKED, not how old he actually WAS. Someone could be either older or younger in actual years and still APPEAR to be about 30, or so. How old someone looks and how old someone actually is can be two different matters altogether.).
I had never personally been a believer in the story Johns told. There are obviously inconsistencies in it. However, if the inverted signature does point out the number "132", it should give us all pause to reconsider what she said, despite any reservations about the specifics of what she said. The only question is whether those exclamation point dots are simply random variations, as one researcher has said to me. My answer is that the fact that there is even a PATTERN to the stippled dots (i.e., a small triangle) seems to imply that they were written intentionally, and that the variations were done for a specific reason and to achieve a desired goal. The variation between them is just too stark, and all of the stippled ones are even in a small cluster.
I'd like to point out that I did not formulate my ideas about Z's signatures AFTER noticing the pattern to the exclamation point dots. The above observations about the dots were made AFTER having noticed the pattern to Z's signature circles, then realizing that the signature on the Pen Card was "inverted" compared to the others. In all of my efforts on the Z case, I try work deductively, not inductively, formulating a theory and then attempting to prove it by further observation. It was by observing that the Pen Card was an exception to the rule that I stumbled upon the possible implications of the series of exclamation points.
© Copyright 2000 Michael R. Rodelli. May not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without the expressed written consent of the author.
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p4.as1.dungarvan1.eircom.net - 126.96.36.199) on Saturday, December 30, 2000 - 09:14 am:|
For what it's worth,I do think you have something here. Certainly I believe the circle was drawn upside down,again because of the smoothness on the right hemisphere in this case an exact opposite of the other Zodiac Symbols.Only time will tell with the "132",but good luck.I thought before that the clue here was the 6 exclamnation marks after the word "thing" and also the number of times this word was underlined.At the time I thought this may point to the cipher ,which has a correction 6 in and 6 down.
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p4.as1.dungarvan1.eircom.net - 188.8.131.52) on Saturday, December 30, 2000 - 09:28 am:|
OOps, I do of course mean exclamation marks.
|By Mike (Mike) (spider-wl041.proxy.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Saturday, December 30, 2000 - 09:29 am:|
I agree with you that Z's signatures were not so much "crossed circles" as "crossed ovals". There is certainly something to be said for analyzing the shape of the "circles", as they clearly imply the manner in which they were drawn.
While people have disagreed with some of my observations about Z's "O's, etc., it is inarguable that the Pen Card signature differs significantly from the bulk of the others. That is what led me to scrutinize the exclamation points. It was like a pointer--an "error" or deviation leading to potentially important info, with all due respect to Mr. GP.
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p4.as1.dungarvan1.eircom.net - 220.127.116.11) on Saturday, December 30, 2000 - 09:41 am:|
I was approaching for the point of Handedness or slant to the paper when writing.When drawing circles people instinctively start out "neater" and "loose it" on the up slope.I think it favors a right hand in these circumstances.By the way that correction in the cipher is a K! too much?