Below, on November 16th 1970, is one of the rare times that a Zodiac Killer envelope found itself published in the San Francisco Chronicle. This was the envelope containing the Dripping Pen card and 340 cipher. 

To this day the vast majority of people believe the Exorcist letter to be a genuine Zodiac communication. If this is the case, then the 1978 letter should also be considered genuine Zodiac material, if you believe the findings of Alan Keel as testified to by Zodiac investigator Mike Rodelli. Alan Keel, Criminalist at the San Francisco Police Department, San Francisco, California from 1996 to 1999 "revealed that there were two letters in possession of the department that, in contrast to the "true" Zodiac letters, had abundant saliva and DNA-containing oral epithelial cells on them, that DNA was easily extracted from these two letters, and that the DNA extracted from these two letters matched between them. These two letters were considered forgeries, since the "true" Zodiac verifiable letters had not been licked by the sender". According to Mike, Alan Keel had "analyzed two letters, one of which is the 1978 'forgery', and finds that this letter and one of the 1974 letters are loaded with saliva and cells. He then easily extracts DNA from both of these letters using the more primitive DNA technology of that time and finds that the DNA matches between those two letters, thus proving that one person sent both".

The only two communications tested in the San Francisco Police Department DNA  report  for cells, from 1974 onwards, were the Exorcist letter and 1978 letter. Therefore, these were the only letters that could reasonably have matched for DNA. Two of the other 1974 communications were not processed for DNA, and the SLA letter wasn't even listed as a "suspected Zodiac correspondence". If Alan Keel believes the 1978 letter to be a "forgery" along with one of the 1974 letters, it is unlikely to be the Exorcist letter. The envelopes of the April 20th 1970 (13-Symbol cipher letter) and April 28th 1970 (Dragon card) were not published in any newspapers. These were the only two confirmed Zodiac envelopes to carry the address of San Fran (dot) Chronicle prior to January 29th 1974. Below is a comparison from these two envelopes and the Exorcist letter. The author of the Exorcist letter (if a hoaxer) had the option to copy the envelope published in the San Francisco Chronicle on November 16th 1970, but chose not to. The handwriting, spacing and composition almost certainly suggests one author. If you believe that the April 20th 1970 and April 28th 1970 letters to be the Zodiac Killer, then it's reasonable to conclude the Exorcist letter (and envelope) was composed by the Zodiac Killer as well.

If we arrive at the conclusion that the Exorcist letter is genuine based on the above comparisons, and dismiss the SLA & Red Phantom letters as having nothing to do with the Zodiac case based on findings previously shown on this website, then one has to conclude (if Alan Keel is correct) that the DNA from the 1978 letter must match the DNA from the Badlands/Citizen card. But this seemingly wasn't tested for cells in the DNA chart.  If the DNA from the 1978 letter (claimed as a forgery) somehow matched either the SLA or Red Phantom letter, then we would have to rule out both the SLA and Red Phantom letters because their envelopes were written by the same author (see below). Mike Rodelli has argued to the SLA letter (and envelope} being authored by the Zodiac Killer based on handwriting. If he is an advocate for handwriting analysis, then he should come to the conclusion that the SLA & Red Phantom envelopes were written by one author (since neither were published in the newspapers). The SLA & Red Phantom envelopes would also contain the same DNA profile. This being the case, along with the comparisons above suggesting the Exorcist letter is genuine, leaves only the Badlands/Citizen card to match in DNA with the 1978 letter (because only one 1974 letter matched with the 1978 letter). But again, this wasn't tested in the DNA chart. The claim of Alan Keel (assuming this is correct) "that the DNA extracted from two letters matched in DNA", can now produce only one possibility. If the DNA from the 1978 letter matched the Red Phantom letter, then the SLA letter can be ruled out also (this would effectively be three matches). If the DNA from the 1978 letter matched the SLA letter, then the Red Phantom letter can similarly be ruled out.

Therefore, if only two letters matched in DNA, the only possible option is the Exorcist letter and 1978 letter, making both genuine Zodiac communications. Especially when you consider the Exorcist letter was the only communication processed for DNA (and cells were found). This suggests that Zodiac did lick his envelopes and/or stamps. It also suggests that David Toschi is not responsible for writing the 1978 letter, because if he did, he would also be the author of the Exorcist letter, April 20th 1970 letter and April 28th 1970 letter, based on the argument of Alan Keel and the findings above. 

THE PHANTOM ZODIAC LETTER ON JULY 8TH 1974 [PART ONE]
​THE PHANTOM ZODIAC LETTER ON JULY 8TH 1974 [PART TWO]

Melinda Stehr of the attorney general's office said handwriting experts confirmed the October 28th 1987 letter was a simulation of a letter sent to the San Francisco Chronicle a decade ago, which was also considered to be a hoax. "Someone saw the letter and was using it as a copy". Stehr said. "It's a fake. It's a hoax". Vallejo Police Captain Roy Conway said the letter ″was not authored by the authentic Zodiac, but that it is a simulation of a hoax letter written in 1978". Robert Prouty, a documents examiner, stated in respect to the 1978 letter: "I examined the photographs of the April letter and those of previous letters attributed to Zodiac. My first impression was that it was in the same general style as previous letters, but after closer examination my ultimate conclusion was that there were so many differences that it was not written by the same person who wrote the previous Zodiac letters … Several letter characteristics in my opinion did not match the style used by Zodiac. The slant of some letters was not consistent with previous Zodiac communications. I am of the opinion that the letter of April 24 was an attempt to duplicate Zodiac letters and is not authentic. He went on to say of the 1987 letter (and its sister letter mailed to the Chronicle): "My very firm opinion is that they were not written by the authentic Zodiac. They appear to be composed of previous letters which have since been made public. All of us were hoping we'd heard the last of him",        

​Therefore, Robert Prouty, Captain Roy Conway and Melinda Stehr are claiming that the 1987 author was mimicking the 1978 author, who was also mimicking previous Zodiac letters. This means that the author of both letters in 1987 took the time and effort to compose and mail two communications, but was utterly incapable of crafting a letter using any of the Zodiac Killer's confirmed communications, either by copying the handwriting from newspapers in 1969 or 1970, or by using Robert Graysmith's book released the previous year. Instead, the author of the October 28th 1987 letter to the Vallejo Times-Herald chose the only letter out of Zodiac's entire portfolio that was widely reported as a hoax by newspapers. In other words, the so-called hoaxer of the 1987 letter chose to copy a hoax letter to convince you he was real.

If you were a hoaxer in 1987, attempting to pass yourself off as the Zodiac Killer, would you really craft a letter in 1987 that virtually mimicked the first three lines of the 1978 letter and expect anything other than a copycat label. The bottom of each correspondence was equally similar, with "yours truly:" and "guess" featuring in both letters. Anybody making a serious attempt at fooling the police and newspapers would surely not have made it so obvious. The author of the 1987 letter clearly didn't care that people viewing this letter would draw the obvious conclusions - and the only person who didn't need to convince you that he was the Zodiac Killer, was the Zodiac Killer himself. These conclusions were made by documents examiner, Robert Prouty, in absence of the comparison between the October 28th 1987 envelope and the July 31st 1969 envelope, both mailed to the Vallejo Times-Herald.

The author of the 1987 envelope, if a hoaxer, would have had no knowledge of the design of the 1969 envelope, because it had never been released publicly by October 28th 1987. So maybe Robert Prouty, Captain Roy Conway and Melinda Stehr should have explained how the author of the 1987 envelope used the same 13 words as the 1969 envelope, used no punctuation in either address, used the full newspaper title of Vallejo Times Herold in both (abbreviated in the published July 31st letters), probably misspelled "Herald" to "Herold" on both occasions (as spelled in the 1990 Celebrity Cypher postcard), and finally managed to create handwriting not too dissimilar (see below). A hoaxer on this occasion would have had to mimic another communication without ever seeing it. Unless of course, it was the Zodiac Killer on both occasions.

​Robert Prouty stated "My very firm opinion is that they (1987 letters) were not written by the authentic Zodiac. They appear to be composed of previous letters which have since been made public". Had he stated "My very firm opinion is that they (the 1987 envelopes} were not written by the authentic Zodiac. They appear to be composed of previous letters (envelopes) which have since been made public", he would have been wrong. Had the 1969 Vallejo Times-Herald envelope been released into the public domain by 1987, you can be sure that Robert Prouty would have said the author of the 1987 envelope copied the 1969 envelope. These arguments have been widely used to discredit the 1978 letter and envelope (the latter of which mimicked the Dripping Pen card envelope). If the Zodiac Killer can mimic the 1978 letter in the 1987 letter and mimic the 1969 envelope in the 1987 envelope (which a hoaxer had no access to), then he can mimic the Dripping Pen card envelope in the 1978 envelope, showing that mimicry cannot be used to justify calling somebody a hoaxer.  

To this day the vast majority of people believe the Exorcist letter to be a genuine Zodiac communication. If this is the case, then the 1978 letter should also be considered genuine Zodiac material, if you believe the findings of Alan Keel as testified to by Zodiac investigator Mike Rodelli. According to Mike, Alan Keel, Criminalist at the San Francisco Police Department, San Francisco, California from 1996 to 1999, had "analyzed two letters, one of which is the 1978 'forgery', and finds that this letter and one of the 1974 letters are loaded with saliva and cells. He then easily extracts DNA from both of these letters using the more primitive DNA technology of that time and finds that the DNA matches between those two letters, thus proving that one person sent both".

The only two communications tested in the San Francisco Police Department DNA  report  for cells, from 1974 onwards, were the Exorcist letter and 1978 letter. Therefore, these were the only letters that could reasonably have matched for DNA. Two of the other 1974 communications were not processed for DNA, and the SLA letter wasn't even listed as a "suspected Zodiac correspondence".

It is highly likely that the 1978 letter wasn't ruled out through DNA (just placed on the list and attributed in comments as not an authentic Zodiac letter}. Had it been ruled out through DNA, then it would have been an admission from the San Francisco Police Department that the DNA from the 1978 letter either matched somebody they knew wasn't Zodiac (such as David Toschi), or the DNA originated from a female. If the DNA from David Toschi had matched the 1978 letter, then logically they should have ruled out the Exorcist letter too, according to the findings of Alan Keel. But the San Francisco Police Department didn't attribute the Exorcist letter in comments as not an authentic Zodiac letter, in effect, leaving it under the general heading of Suspected Zodiac Correspondence. Therefore, by reverse logic, we can conclude that if the Exorcist letter is deemed a Suspected Zodiac Correspondence, then we must conclude the 1978 letter is a Suspected Zodiac Correspondence, according to not only the findings of Alan Keel, but the fact that none of the other 1974 letters were tested for DNA (hence why none have any findings in comments in the DNA table). If Alan Keel is correct, then it is impossible to accept the Exorcist letter as genuine Zodiac material without embracing the validity of the 1978 letter also. 

Mike Morford has placed the Exorcist letter under Confirmed Zodiac Letters on the Zodiac Killer Site forum, as have other Zodiac websites. If Alan Keel's findings show that one of the 1974 communications matched in DNA to the 1978 letter, then by the SFPD's own admission in the DNA report, that neither the SLA letter, Citizen card and Red Phantom letter were ever tested for the presence of saliva, it becomes obvious that only the Exorcist letter could have matched in DNA to the 1978 letter. This corroborates the claim of Alan Keel when he stated "that the 1978 letter and one of the 1974 letters are loaded with saliva and cells". Suspects like Ross Sullivan would be eliminated if Alan Keel is correct, because Ross Sullivan died a year before the 1978 letter was mailed.

If the SFPD had really deemed the 1978 letter not an authentic Zodiac letter through DNA, then barring a female author, they would have to know the identity of the person who licked the 1978 envelope, who they equally knew wasn't Zodiac. If this were the case, then they have been less than forthcoming with that information. But again, it doesn't explain why they haven't declared the Exorcist letter as not authentic if Alan Keel's findings are correct. Everything points to the fact that the 1978 letter was only ruled out through handwriting and placed into the DNA report under this assumption, thereby giving us the impression that the 1978 letter has categorically been ruled out as Zodiac correspondence, which it hasn't. 

If we conclude that the Exorcist letter and 1978 letter author are the same person, then researchers and forum members alike, who believe the Exorcist letter is authentic Zodiac correspondence, cannot use handwriting analysis as a reason to challenge the authenticity of the 1978 letter. Every time you argue against the 1978 letter on the basis of handwriting, you would be simultaneously negating the authenticity of the Exorcist letter. According to the findings of Alan Keel, you either embrace both letters as genuine communications, or you consign both to the increasing pile of hoaxed Zodiac correspondence.  

These violent murders are committed in a Los Angeles apartment, where the killer is picking off the tenants one-by-one. This makes it all the more unusual that the only two known letters ever mailed from Los Angeles (in which the writer identified himself as Zodiac), were mailed immediately after the April 24th 1978 letter. On May 2nd 1978, the alleged Bay Area murderer opened with "This is the Zodiac speaking" and finished with "Hey - - - you actors - this is your lucky Break. Remember - whoever plays me has his work cut out for him". On July 19th 1978, the alleged murderer of five began with "I am the ZODIAC and I am in control of all things. I am going to tell you a secret. I like friction tape. I like to have it around in case I need to truss someone up in a hurry". The Zodiac Killer must have loved The Toolbox Murders, but acting out a fantasy in Los Angeles seems extremely far-fetched - doesn't it?  

Below is the envelope of the May 2nd 1978 Channel 9 letter featured on zodiackiller.com, mailed to KHJ-TV in Los Angeles just eight days after the "I Am Back With You" letter, postmarked April 24th 1978. There have been links forged on the Zodiac Killer Site forum between two of the 1978 letters and the March 8th 1981 "Atlanta" letter, mailed to West Peachtree Street in Atlanta. All three carried the Symbols of America stamps of the 13c Liberty Bell, 13c Eagle and Shield, and 15c American Flag from the Americana Seies. In addition to these three communications, another communication was mailed on July 19th 1978 to the San Francisco Chronicle from Los Angeles, rambling on about tape waiting for him all over California. In this analysis, I would like to focus initially on the three 1978 letters mailed within three months of one another, as well as the Melvin Belli letter mailed to 1228 Montgomery Street in San Francisco on December 20th 1969. The reason to jump back to 1969, was not only because the handwriting on the Melvin Belli letter looked somewhat similar to the Channel 9 envelope, but because of the content contained within it. 

The Melvin Belli letter contained the phrases I am afraid I will loose control again, I will loose all controol of my self and Please help me I can not remain in control for much longer. The communications on April 24th 1978 and July 19th 1978, either side of the Channel 9 letter, both continued this theme of control. The April 24th 1978 letter concluded with "I am now in control of all things". The July 19th 1978 letter concluded with "I am the ZODIAC and I am in control," but also began with "I am the ZODIAC and I am in control of all things". One couldn't help thinking that this theme should be present in the Channel 9 letter, therefore binding it to the other two 1978 letters - and possibly the Zodiac Killer.

The upper left corner of an envelope is usually reserved for the sender's name and address, but the author of the Channel 9 letter has placed 1234567 All Good Children Go To Heaven (abbreviated) from The Beatles You Never Give Me Your Money lyrics, as well as drawing the Apple logo from their record label in the bottom left corner. However, we are left with the boxed off section in the top left corner of the envelope, which if a mirror image just like the other writing, should be the acronym AIC. Was the answer present in the July 19th 1978 letter, when he twice stated "I AM THE ZODIAC AND I AM IN CONTROL", or are we looking for a continuation of The Beatles theme regarding the letters AIC.

If we consider one author responsible for the April 24th 1978, May 2nd 1978, July 19th 1978 and March 8th 1981 letters - and he bought several "blocks of four stamps" of the Americana Series in one visit - then we may be able to track the selection of his stamps in respect to his mailings. The Americana Series stamps followed a very uniform plan that outlined the designs of individual stamps as well as the blocks of four. In all, there were five different blocks, each with a different theme, but similar design style – the subject in the center, and the title curving around two of the edges. When all four stamps were placed together, the titles created a frame around the stamps. The five themes were Roots of Democracy, Rights and Freedoms of the American People, Symbols of America, Pioneer America, and America’s Light. Mysticstamp.com.

If the Zodiac Killer was to purchase several of the Symbols of America Series (shown below), these would have been the appropriate postage for the time. The postage was 13c from December 31st 1975 until May 29th 1978, when it switched to 15c. Then on March 22nd 1981 the postage increased to 18c. So three of these stamps would be the correct postage for his three 1978 letters and March 8th 1981 letter, had he applied just one to each.

Let us assume that the Zodiac Killer buys these blocks of four stamps just prior to his first 1978 letter on April 24th 1978. We will use the two blocks shown above to follow his course of action. Being right-handed, he tears off the two upper right Liberty Bell stamps and affixes them to his April 24th 1978 (I Am Back With You) letter. He then tears off one of the upper left Eagle and Shield stamps and affixes it to his May 2nd 1978 (Channel 9) letter. On the block of four with only two stamps remaining, he tears off the 15c American Flag stamp and affixes it to his July 19th 1978 (Friction Tape) letter. This is the easiest of the two options available to him. The stamp on the July 19th 1978 envelope is unknown because we don't have this correspondence available, so this is just a calculated guess. This would have been his only choice from the Symbols of America Series, because the stamp price increased to 15c on May 29th 1978. Then on March 8th 1981 he used the only remaining 15c American Flag stamp from the block of three stamps.

The Zodiac Killer would be left with one redundant 13c Eagle and Shield stamp in respect to correct postage for any letter up to one ounce. If another potential Zodiac letter is discovered to have been mailed between April 24th 1978 (I Am Back With You letter) and May 29th 1978 (when the 13c postage increased), and it contains an Eagle and Shield stamp on the envelope from the Symbols of America Series, we have to consider it as a strong contender for the same responsible.

If the above letters were just mailed by random hoaxers unconnected to one another, it would be rather unusual to expect three independent and consecutive communications claiming to be the Zodiac Killer, to have all contained three Symbols of America stamps from the Americana Series. If the Zodiac Killer kept a secret stash containing his writing paper, marker pens and a supply of stamps for "future use", away from prying eyes, then it is not difficult to understand how the sequence of his mailings could have unfolded.

With the handwriting of the Zodiac Killer so freely available in the newspapers throughout 1969 and 1970, the best way to authenticate later communications such as the 1978, 1986 and 1987 letters is through the design and composition of the address on the envelopes. Had all the confirmed envelopes of the Zodiac Killer been withheld from the newspapers, this would have gone a long way to helping authenticate later material sent by the Zodiac or potential copycats.

Unfortunately, the San Francisco Chronicle published an article on November 16th 1970, using the Dripping Pen card envelope mailed on November 8th 1969. This gave any future hoaxer to the San Francisco Chronicle the perfect opportunity, to mimic not only the handwriting, but the structure and layout of the address. Had this not been done, any significant deviation to known envelope styles could then be challenged, if the content within them contained nothing of any substance regarding the Zodiac Killer. However, the publication of the Dripping Pen card envelope in the San Francisco Chronicle on November 16th 1970, when compared to the questioned April 24th 1978 envelope and letter, may still give us some clues.

Despite being separated by eight years, the 1978 envelope shows extreme similarity to the envelope published in the San Francisco Chronicle. One could be forgiven for believing the author of the 1978 envelope copied the envelope from the November 16th 1970 San Francisco Chronicle. The Zodiac Killer addressed his envelopes to the Chronicle many different ways, using only S.F. Chronicle and San Fran. Chronicle for the name of the newspaper between 1969 and 1974, but used San Fran. Calif., San Francisco Calif, San Fran Calif, San Francisco, Calif., San Fran. Calif, and San Fran. Claif in the remainder of the address. The author of the 1978 letter used the exact wording on the publicized Dripping Pen card envelope (including the not always used "Please Rush To Editor" phrase), which could lead to the assumption that a copycat was mimicking the newspaper publication of this envelope.      

It was considered that Inspector David Toschi had forged this communication to drive publicity back to the ever dwindling Zodiac case. But why would Inspector David Toschi of Homicide Detail attempt to convince authorities of the authenticity of the 1978 letter, by using the exact same handwriting and format of the envelope published in the November 16th 1970 Chronicle newspaper. He likely had many Zodiac envelopes at his disposal, so why not use an unpublicized envelope to appear more convincing? After all, a copycat couldn't have mimicked an envelope not released to the public, from which was known to have been penned by the Zodiac Killer. By mimicking the November 16th 1970 envelope released in the newspapers, you are in effect negating the premise of the 1978 letter being from the genuine Zodiac Killer. I just don't believe a seasoned detective would be that naive.

But there is another thing to consider when determining the authenticity of this letter. The November 16th 1970 reproduction of the envelope in the San Francisco Chronicle did not contain noticeable dotted i's in Francisco, Calif or Editor, but the 1978 envelope dotted all three (just like the original Dripping Pen card envelope). Additionally, the author of the 1978 letter wrote Calif. , placing a dot after the abbreviation. This was a known trait in five confirmed Zodiac communications.

It is unfortunate that the 1978 letter used the address style of the publicized envelope, but while this may lead some to the inevitable conclusion it was designed by a hoaxer, it by the same token appears to exonerate David Toschi, who surely wouldn't have been so stupid to mimic a widely publicized envelope in order to pass off the 1978 letter as being penned by the real killer.

Much is made of the 1978 letter being ruled out by DNA in the San Francisco Police Department report of "suspected Zodiac correspondence." The report states next to the 1978 letter: "DNA sample obtained. Not authentic Zodiac letter". However, it does not explicitly state that the letter was ruled out as being from Zodiac by use of DNA. It had long been determined by many handwriting experts that the 1978 letter wasn't penned by the Zodiac Killer - so incorporating the letter in a list of "suspected Zodiac correspondence" with that determination already in place, is not confirmation it was ruled out specifically by way of DNA analysis. Only that DNA was obtained from a doubted Zodiac correspondence. To have ruled out the 1978 letter through DNA, would imply one of three things. The DNA was determined to have come from a female donor, the DNA was matched to David Toschi, or the DNA didn't match known Zodiac DNA (which by all accounts we don't have). There is every chance that the 1978 letter was never ruled out through DNA, only that it was attributed the title of "not authentic Zodiac letter" through previous determination of its handwriting and the spurious claims of Armistead Maupin. The analysis above, along with investigations exonerating David Toschi as being the author of the 1978 letter, opens up the possibility once again, that the 1978 letter originated from the real killer of five in the Bay Area.    

"A letter sent to a newspaper by someone who said he was the Zodiac serial killer of 19 years ago was declared a hoax Thursday by the state Department of Justice. The letter, in which the writer threatened to kill trick or treaters on Halloween, was similar to several mailed to area newspapers in the late 1960s and early 70s. It was received by the Vallejo Times-Herald Wednesday, but a handwriting analysis found it to be a phony, police reported. Vallejo police Capt. Roy Conway said the letter ″was not authored by the authentic Zodiac, but that it is a simulation of a hoax letter written in 1978". link. "In Sacramento, spokeswoman Melinda Stehr of the attorney general's office said handwriting experts confirmed the letter was a simulation of a letter sent to the San Francisco Chronicle a decade ago, which was also considered to be a hoax. 'Someone saw the letter and was using it as a copy,' Stehr said. 'It's a fake. It's a hoax". link.

The author of the October 1987 letter had a multitude of genuine Zodiac letters available to him from the 1960s and 1970s. but we are led to believe that the designer of the 1987 letter chose to mimic the only letter ever made public to be comprehensively questioned regarding its authenticity. Any author that is trying to convince the reader he is Zodiac would simply take a trip to the library, scroll through the microfilm and access a wealth of Zodiac writings, or buy Robert Graysmith's 1986 Zodiac book.  According to the excerpts from the articles above, the hoaxer got his hands on images of the 1978 letter from nine years ago. If he was capable of doing that, he was capable of accessing the Zodiac letters from 1969 through to 1971. Despite this, the author of the 1987 letter copycatted the copycat from nine years ago, to convince current investigators he was the real Zodiac and not a copycat. Also, why would a copycat determined to pass themselves off as Zodiac, deliberately choose to mimic the opening three lines of the 1978 letter and give the impression they are a copycat. The real Zodiac Killer would have no such concerns.

How did the handwriting experts conclude that the killer mimicked an envelope from 18 years ago so accurately, if he had no access to an image of the 1969 Vallejo Times-Herald envelope? They clearly made a comparison between the 1987 and 1978 letters, but could not have compared the two envelopes and arrived at the conclusion they made. The copycat managed to imitate the July 31st 1969 envelope down to the full address of Vallejo Times-Herald, which was never used in the 1969 letters themselves. Although blurry, the handwriting looks compatible, the "Please Rush to Editor" directive was added twice, no commas or full stops were used on both occasions and thirteen words comprised each envelope in both instances. This copycat certainly went to a lot of effort to apparently mimic an envelope he had no access to, while apparently copying the 1978 letter he did have access to and knew was regarded as a fake. This clearly makes no sense. Then we consider the letter mailed in 1986.    

The 1987 author was without doubt the designer of the 1986 letter. The May 6th 1986 letter wasn't published in the newspapers prior to October 28th 1987 (or thereafter), yet just one year later, the supposed hoaxer of the 1987 Zodiac letter just happened to fashion his letter with near identical opening lines, and referenced how "The Blue Meannies almost caught me" and how "The blue pigs can catch me". That is one hell of a coincidence if the authors are two separate and distinct individuals. This is either a determined hoaxer, writing Zodiac letters twelve and thirteen years adrift from the last confirmed Zodiac letter on January 29th 1974, or it is the real Zodiac Killer. What is the likelihood that the author of the 1986 and 1987 letters was a hoaxer, maintaining his interest over 1 1/2 years, who was also able to reproduce the July 31st 1969 Vallejo Times-Herald envelope to such accuracy when apparently he had no access to it?  

The 1990 Eureka Christmas card and 2001 Happy New Year card weren't enough to rule out candidates as the Zodiac Killer, but the 1986 and 1987 letters, in conjunction with the envelope comparison, leaves little doubt remaining that Ross Sullivan and Earl Van Best Jr were not the Zodiac Killer. Ross Sullivan died on September 29th 1977 and Earl Van Best Jr died on May 20th 1984, so could not be the author of either the 1986 or 1987 letter.

Of course, it goes without saying, that almost all staunch advocates of Ross Sullivan and Earl Van Best Jr will by default reject the 1978, 1986, 1987, 1990 and 2001 communications out of hand. The default setting will be turned to discredit rather than objectively analyze, irrespective of the strength of any presentation.

While some people have claimed that Robert Graysmith may be responsible for forging the 1986 and/or 1987 letter to ignite interest in his book, they have yet to offer any evidence to support such such a claim, other than just speculation. If Robert Graysmith had secured access to all the Zodiac envelopes, you could be assured they would have featured in his Zodiac book, as opposed to the just the Dripping Pen card and Los Angeles Times envelopes. The former of which was readily available in the San Francisco Chronicle article by Paul Avery on November 16th 1970.

A FRESH LOOK AT THE 1987 LETTER [PART ONE]

Many people have considered whether the Zodiac was inspired by previous serial killers, such as Jack the Ripper. who brought terror to the streets of Whitechapel, London in the latter months of 1888. Both killer's would be accredited with five canonical victims in a comparatively brief reign, and both cases would also be accompanied by letters to the press. The overarching consensus, is of a Zodiac Killer who readily supplied the newspapers with details of his crimes and intentions, in both a wilful and reactionary manner. He was urged by Vallejo Police Chief, Jack E. Stiltz to provide more information to the police, to prove that the murderer and letter writer were one and the same person. The Zodiac Killer duly obliged when he hand delivered the 'Debut of Zodiac' letter to the San Francisco Examiner on August 4th 1969 revealing his pseudonym to the world - the Zodiac Killer was born. If we ever needed to discover the purpose or meaning behind a Zodiac Killer communication, then often we need look no further than the previous months newspaper coverage. Although the Ripper letters were believed to be a concoction by the tabloid press of the day to boost circulation, the ridicule and taunting of the police became the mainstay that connected both Jack the Ripper and the Zodiac Killer, despite being separated by eighty years.

On May 6th 1986, the Zodiac Killer or a hoaxer mailed a letter to the San Francisco Chronicle claiming the April 22nd 1986 murders of Koy Ien Saechao and Choy Fow Salee, who were brutally gunned down in similar fashion to the attack on Michael Mageau and Darlene Ferrin at Blue Rock Springs Park on July 4th 1969. The killer had approached their vehicle from the rear and fired off 15 small-caliber rounds into the vehicle, blowing out both front side windows. The author of the letter wrote "This is the Zodiac speaking. I am still out here an crackproof. I want you to know about my latest slaves that I have collected about two weeks ago up by Sacramento Ca. I will give you clue to help you with the mystry. They were killed by a freeway. The Blue Meannies almost caught me. The body count is growing now 100+ all over the state of Ca and Na". This letter is a complete outlier to the barrage of communications from 1969 to 1971 - so what inspired a lone communication such as this, if not the release of the Robert Graysmith Zodiac book in the January of that year. The 1986 letter would be belatedly followed by another correspondence on October 28th 1987 referencing the movie The Car - and it is this latest letter that would mimic one crucial detail from another outlier communication from 1978. 

The letter on the right was mailed on April 24th 1978 claiming the Zodiac Killer was back and waiting for a good movie about him. This communication arrived seven years after the 1971 'Los Angeles' letter and four years after the quartet of communications in 1974. So, what drove the Zodiac killer out of the shadows and back into the limelight? (assuming it was him). We know the Zodiac Killer fed off the newspaper coverage of the day, so there must have been a considerable trigger to drive him to communicate with the San Francisco Chronicle once again. The answer may lie in the design of the April 24th 1978 letter.

The letter began with "Dear" and ended with "yours truly" (placed midline), in similar design to the Dear Boss letter, mailed and accredited to Jack the Ripper on September 27th 1888. This may not be wholly convincing on its own, unless we can discover the inspiration for why the Zodiac Killer decided to resurrect his contact with the Chronicle newspaper in 1978, akin to the release of the Zodiac book by Robert Graysmith in 1986. It may have been a newspaper story that he had followed closely over the preceding months or years. But one that inspired the Ripperesque style approach and the desire for his name to be up in lights.

Dubbed the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe terrorized the north of England from 1975 to 1981, finally being arrested on January 2nd 1981 and sentenced to 20 concurrent life sentences, to serve a minimum of 30 years (later given a whole life tariff). He was convicted for the murder of 13 women and the attempted murder of seven more. The investigation was marred by police incompetence and a hoaxer called Wearside Jack. Over the course of a year between March 1978 and the end of June 1979, John Humble sent three letters claiming to be the Yorkshire Ripper. Postmarked from Sunderland, two were addressed to Assistant Chief Constable George Oldfield, a member of the West Yorkshire Police who was heading the Ripper inquiry, and one to the Daily Mirror. However, these letters were not published until 1979, so couldn't have inspired the 1978 Chronicle letter. The Yorkshire Ripper case dominated the headlines in the UK - and it is extremely unlikely (whether or not the Zodiac Killer has British ancestry) that an avid reader such as the Bay Area murderer wouldn't have kept himself informed of world affairs.

On January 21st 1978, the Yorkshire Ripper claimed his seventh victim, that of Yvonne Pearson (21). Peter Sutcliffe repeatedly bludgeoned her about the head with a hammer, then jumped on her chest before stuffing horse-hair into her mouth from a discarded sofa under which he hid her body near Lumb Lane. On January 18th 1978, Helen Rytka (18) was struck on the head five times as she exited his vehicle - and after stripping many of the clothes from her body, he then repeatedly stabbed her in the chest. Her body was found beneath railway arches in the timber-yard to which he had driven her three days later. The body of Yvonne Pearson was not discovered and reported in the newspapers until March 26th 1978. One month later, the Zodiac Killer reappeared and wrote to the San Francisco Chronicle, in a communication bearing hallmarks of the Dear Boss letter of 1888. Did the Zodiac Killer keep abreast of the news from England and resurrect the Ripper for the newsrooms of the San Francisco Chronicle, or was there another reason he resurfaced in the April of 1978? 

On July 19th 1978 a typewritten letter from Los Angeles arrived at the San Francisco Chronicle stating: "I am the ZODIAC and I am in control of all things. I am going to tell you a secret. I like friction tape. I like to have it around in case I need to truss someone up in a hurry....I have my real name on a small metallic tape. You see, while you have it in your possession, I want you to know it belongs to me and you think I may have left it accidentally. I am athletic. It could be swim fins, or a piece of scuba gear. But maybe you play chess with me. I have several cheap sets in closets all over. I have my name on the bottom of the lid with the scotch tape....My tape is waiting for me all over California. Do you know me? I am the ZODIAC and I am in control". ​

In the previous article on this topic we discussed how this letter may have been a sarcastic dig at David Toschi, who had been demoted from homicide detail to pawn detail after revelations of his possible authorship of the April 24th 1978 letter. The phrase "but maybe you play chess with me" a reference to his misfortune of ending up in the pawn section. Quicktrader, from Zodiac Killer Site forum, explained how the author of this letter may have given us a clue to his name Paul, which featured at the bottom of the lid on a well known brand of Scotch tape. In fact, the majority of the letter implicitly focuses on tape, beginning with "friction tape" to bind his victims, then "small metallic tape" which he didn't leave somewhere accidentally, and finally, the "scotch tape" which we've already covered.  

Regarding the tape - twice he mentioned his name in accompaniment. The author stated "I have my real name on a small metallic tape" and  "I have my name on the bottom of the lid with the scotch tape". If we are to discover what the Zodiac Killer (if the author) meant by "small metallic tape" we need to travel back to a murder where his name featured, at or close to the attack site, and where it was deliberately left. Fortunately we don't have to go back too far.

On Sunday November 2nd 1975, a man walked up to a couple's vehicle on Monte Cresta Drive, Belmont, California and shot 17-year-old Carlmont High School student Anthony Vincent Bruno Jr to death. "According to Police Captain George Stephenson, Bruno and his girlfriend (16 years) had been parked on Monte Cresta Drive, above Barclay Way in an isolated area of western hills when a man opened the driver's side door and apparently without saying anything fired the shotgun. The girl, who was not identified by police, pushed Bruno's body aside and drove the car to her home from where police were notified. She described the assailant as white, 5 feet 5 inches tall, 140 pounds and wearing an Army green parka with hood, according to police. Stephenson said also that a late model brown pick-up truck, possibly a Dodge or Chevrolet, had been seen in the area at about the time of the shooting." San Mateo Times.

​The description doesn't sound much like the Zodiac Killer, but often he would lay claim to murders he never committed. This may have been the case here, when on the following day (possibly having read or heard about the murder) placed something interesting in a phone booth. ​Mike Morford stated, in reference to a San Mateo news article, dated November 14th 1975 "The reporter, a man named Bob Foster, mentions that on the night of November 3, 1975, the 11 pm TV news on channel KGO, ran a story about a Zodiac letter being found in a phone booth. This is pretty interesting to me for a couple reasons regarding the timing. First of all because, the night before, on 11/2/75, a young man and his girlfriend were attacked on a lovers lane by a gun wielding man. The male victim, Vincent Bruno was killed, but his girlfriend survived. If I recall correctly, there may have been a letter & cassette tape found the same night in a phone booth not far from the attack site, from someone claiming to be Zodiac. Also, I will try to find it again, but in one of the FBI files, there IS mention of a letter & casette tape found together". Here is a previous article covering this topic. 

On July 19th 1978 a typewritten letter from Los Angeles arrived at the San Francisco Chronicle stating: "I am the ZODIAC and I am in control of all things. I am going to tell you a secret. I like friction tape. I like to have it around in case I need to truss someone up in a hurry....I have my real name on a small metallic tape. You see, while you have it in your possession, I want you to know it belongs to me and you think I may have left it accidentally. I am athletic. It could be swim fins, or a piece of scuba gear. But maybe you play chess with me. I have several cheap sets in closets all over. I have my name on the bottom of the lid with the scotch tape....My tape is waiting for me all over California. Do you know me? I am the ZODIAC and I am in control". 

This letter mailed to the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper and described by Robert Graysmith in his Zodiac book, appears like a mishmash of inane ramblings of somebody "not in control", although sometimes there is method in the madness if you look hard enough. The one thing the Zodiac Killer did on numerous occasions during his initial letter writing campaign, was to respond to the recent newspaper articles he read. There is no reason why this letter cannot be unpicked by looking at articles published in the San Francisco Chronicle in the days leading up to July 19th 1978 - the date of this typed correspondence.

In this newspaper collection compiled by cryptographer Dave Oranchak it can be seen that a flurry of newspaper articles preceded this 'Zodiac' mailing, from July 11th 1978 to July 18th 1978. They were entitled The Rise and Fall of a Good Cop, New Puzzles Further Muddle Zodiac Case, Officials Jittery Over Latest Zodiac Puzzle, New Zodiac Disclosures, Feinstein Says Toschi's Being Crucified and Gain Talks About Toschi. They all highlighted the plight of Inspector David Toschi of Homicide Detail, who came under suspicion for forging both the Exorcist letter, mailed on January 29th 1974, and the most recent 'Zodiac' communication on April 24th 1978, which stated "Dear Editor, This is the Zodiac speaking I am back with you. Tell herb caen I am here, I have always been here. That city pig toschi is good - but I am smarter and better he will get tired then leave me alone. I am waiting for a good movie about me. who will play me. I am now in control of all things". Considering this July 19th 1978 letter was mailed just after these newspaper articles about David Toschi, parroting "I am in control of all things", it is a fairly safe bet that this typed communication was addressing David Toschi personally.

Quicktrader, from the Zodiac Killer Site forum, highlighted the first clue in the letter, in which the author states "I have my real name on a small metallic tape", "I have my name on the bottom of the lid with the scotch tape" and "my tape is waiting for me all over California". Scotch Tape could be bought all over California, and this version of the product did have a name on the bottom of the lid. Was this the Zodiac Killer insinuating that his forename was Paul? 

But what inspired the author of the July 19th 1978 letter to hint at his "real name" in the correspondence? In the San Francisco Chronicle article on July 18th 1978, entitled ​Gain Talks About Toschi, the journalist writes "Zodiac is the name used by a man who killed six persons at random - five in the Bay Area - in the late 1960s". So this may have been the perfect retort, declaring his real name was all over California on the bottom of Scotch Tape lids.

However, the author of this communication also refers to chess, stating "But maybe you play chess with me. I have several cheap sets in closets all over". He was offering to play chess with David Toschi for a reason that was well known - and published in many newspapers precedent to this typed letter. Here is the possible answer lying in the pages of the July 14th 1978 San Francisco Chronicle. It stated Maupin turned his phony letters from Toschi over to DeAmicis, who confronted the inspector with them in the deputy chief's office last Friday morning. Toschi admitted writing them. "My recommendations" said DeAmicis "was that because of ego problems we thought it in the best interest of Dave Toschi and the department" to consign him to pawn shop detail.  

The author of this letter likely knew that David Toschi had been demoted from homicide detail to pawn shop detail and was currently taking a short holiday. What better way, in true Zodiac style, to ridicule the demoted inspector by offering the steward of the pawn shop detail a game of chess. The answer is always so black and white.

THE 7/19/78 LETTER [PART TWO]

Most, if not all Zodiac forums and websites classify the January 29th 1974 Exorcist letter as confirmed Zodiac correspondence. It is widely touted by law enforcement, newspapers and documentaries as the last confirmed Zodiac communication, and in a poll conducted on this site, 86% of visitors believe it to be genuine Zodiac material. This mailing was listed in the 2000 San Francisco 'Suspected Zodiac Correspondence' DNA Report as one of the communications processed for DNA. The subsequent 1974 letters were not processed for DNA, otherwise the report would have stated this. Since the Exorcist letter was widely considered to be the last confirmed Zodiac communication, it would therefore make perfect sense that this took priority over the Citizen Card and Red Phantom letter to be the only 1974 correspondence tested.

Mike Rodelli wrote in his book, 'The Hunt for Zodiac:The Inconceivable Double Life of a Notorious Serial Killer', that Alan Keel, Criminalist at the San Francisco Police Department, San Francisco, California from 1996 to 1999 "revealed that there were two letters in possession of the department that, in contrast to the "true" Zodiac letters, had abundant saliva and DNA-containing oral epithelial cells on them, that DNA was easily extracted from these two letters, and that the DNA extracted from these two letters matched between them. These two letters were considered forgeries, since the "true" Zodiac verifiable letters had not been licked by the sender." Mike Rodelli added that "In contrast (to earlier communications), Keel analyzed two other letters, one of which is the 1978 forgery, and finds that this letter and one of the 1974 letters are loaded with saliva and cells. He then easily extracts DNA from both of these letters using the more primitive DNA technology of that time and finds that the DNA matches between those two letters, thus proving that one person sent both."  

For two letters to have a definitive match of DNA they must have a complete profile. A partial DNA profile from one letter compared to a full DNA profile of the other could only be used to exclude them as having been licked by the same person, not conclusively tie them together as having a single contributor. Since the Exorcist letter appeared to be the only 1974 letter processed for DNA, it can be argued from Alan Keel's statement that the two letters that matched in DNA were the 1978 letter and Exorcist letter. If the San Francisco DNA report concluded that the 1978 letter was "not an authentic Zodiac letter", then there is a strong possibility that neither was the Exorcist letter.

For those who resolutely argue that the Exorcist letter is a genuine Zodiac communication, may have to accept the authenticity of the 1978 letter too. According to all the above observations, these two communications are inextricably linked by one sender. In early 2018 Vallejo police Detective Terry Poyser, who has worked the Zodiac case for four years, said his agency has submitted two envelopes (in late 2017) that contained letters from the Zodiac Killer for a type of advanced DNA analysis that previously had not been available in the case. Poyser declined to identify the lab, but said it would attempt to obtain a full DNA profile from saliva on the envelope flap and stamps. He said he expected to have results back from the lab as soon as in the next few weeks, and almost certainly by summer. Sacramento Bee.

Why are they attempting to find a full DNA profile, when presumably they have already achieved a full DNA profile, according to Alan Keel and the San Francisco Police Department DNA report? They cannot claim the 1978 letter as "not an authentic Zodiac letter" in a DNA report, unless a full profile exists. Furthermore, how did they ascertain the 1978 letter was not Zodiac, unless they knew who licked the envelope and stamp seal - and knew that person wasn't Zodiac. They couldn't ascertain the 1978 letter wasn't Zodiac by comparing it to authenticated early Zodiac material, because seemingly these had not yielded a full DNA profile as we stand today. They clearly seem to have little faith in the Exorcist letter either, because if this has generated a full DNA profile in the past, but they are still "attempting to obtain a full DNA profile from saliva" today, then I presume this invalidates their confidence in its authenticity.  

Tom Voigt recently began a forum thread on the Zodiac Killer message board entitled Vallejo Police Department DNA Update, stating "The lab work has turned into more lab work. VPD is still at it. The hunt continues..." Why are they still hunting for viable DNA when apparently a full profile has been secured previously? Even if law enforcement have little confidence in the Exorcist and 1978 letter, these would have provided the best options to run through a genealogy website 18 months ago and the results would have been in by now had anything fruitful been generated. Unless of course, you already know who forged both of these letters. I see no benefit in not seeking profiles from these two letters (generated from the 1978 letter and another, if different to suggested) to enter into a familial DNA program. If the familial search threw out a notable family tree, or the lineage of a recognized Zodiac suspect, then it would add credence to the previously doubted Zodiac communication. 

For the 60% of people who voted on this site, believing the 1978 letter to be from the hand of the Zodiac Killer, the question you should be asking is, why did the the 2000 San Francisco DNA report determine the 1978 correspondence to be "not an authentic Zodiac letter" if they hadn't already obtained a full DNA profile to make such an authoritative and conclusive judgement? The only other reasonable conclusion, is that they already knew who the author was.    ​

In 2002, a new round of DNA testing was performed on some of the Zodiac letters by Dr. Cydne Holt, yet despite an ABC Primetime documentary opening up with the promising statements of "But today thanks to new crime scene technology there's reason to believe time may have run out on Zodiac. Somewhere, perhaps on the back of this postage stamp or in the seal of this envelope, may be microscopic clues that will now finally lead police to the killer", it appears the early optimism of a Zodiac breakthrough has soured. Dr. Cydne Holt stated "We are hoping to be able to get some genetic information about the individual or individuals that did seal these envelopes or place stamps on them". 

It is patently obvious by these statements the importance of securing genetic material from the sealed sections of the stamps and envelopes. Any testing performed on the outside of the stamps and envelopes is absolutely meaningless from a standpoint of identifying the person who was present at the time of their sealing. Since this documentary aired, it is now claimed that this is exactly what transpired in the laboratory - with the letters being swabbed from the outside. The only reason to perform such a pointless procedure, would be if you had failed to find any or enough saliva on the sealed section of the envelopes or stamps tested, yet were determined to carry on with the 'show'. In other words, the ABC Primetime documentary ended up becoming a circus sideshow for ratings, rather than applying the correct procedure which was promised in the opening statements of the documentary. This led to previously ruled out suspects getting a new day in the sun. Despite the fact this round of testing has been routinely discredited by many in the Zodiac community, the documentary has inadvertently revealed so much more about the Zodiac case. 

The San Francisco Police Department DNA report of communications tested in the late 1990s, indicates that "few cells" were found on any of the Zodiac communications up to and including the June 26th 1970 'Button' letter. The letters subsequently tested after this date were all labelled as "cells found". The Kathleen Johns, Little List, Exorcist and 1978 letters all contained potentially measurable genetic material.

​Even Criminalist Alan Keel (according to Mike Rodelli) revealed: "In contrast (to earlier communications), Keel analyzes two other letters, one of which is the 1978 forgery, and finds that this letter and one of the 1974 letters are loaded with saliva and cells. He then easily extracts DNA from both of these letters using the more primitive DNA technology of that time and finds that the DNA matches between those two letters, thus proving that one person sent both."  The only other letter in 1974 processed for DNA (where cells were found), was the Exorcist letter. Therefore, the two letters described by Alan Keel "as matching between them" had to be the 1978 letter and the Exorcist letter. If the 1978 letter is 'not an authentic Zodiac letter', then the Exorcist letter is 'not an authentic Zodiac letter' either.​

So, here we have four communications that provided notable results, but none were featured in the 2002 ABC Primetime documentary. The fact that the 1978 letter or Exorcist letter were apparently never tested in the documentary, despite being "loaded with saliva and cells", should be enough evidence to conclude that this round of testing didn't consider these two letters as reliable Zodiac communications. Whereas the majority of Zodiac sleuths consider the Exorcist letter to be genuine Zodiac material, the findings of Alan Keel and the reluctance to use this letter at all in the documentary, seems to reject this premise. The documentary made specific reference to the July 31st 1969 letters, the October 13th 1969 Paul Stine letter and the November 8th 1969 'Dripping Pen' card, all of which apparently contained "few cells" according to the San Francisco Police Department DNA report only two years earlier, but made no mention of the July 24th 1970 Kathleen Johns letter or the July 26th 1970 Little List letter, both of which were labelled as "cells found". If you were to choose letters for testing, surely you would choose ones that contained more cells on the sealed sections of the envelopes and stamps. 

Despite the controversy this documentary has generated, it did clearly state "Dr. Holt has already detected the possible presence of Zodiac's DNA in the seal of the envelope that contained the greeting card, and just in case that fails to provide a full DNA profile, she also prepares to look for DNA  beneath the stamps on two of these three letters (July 31st 1969 letters)." 

They would ultimately claim a partial DNA fingerprint which they used to rule out Arthur Leigh Allen, Kjell Qvale and Charles Collins as the infamous Zodiac Killer. But many believe they failed to find enough material from the sealed sections of the communications and thus resorted to swabbing the outside of the envelopes and stamps. However, Dr. Cydne Holt did affirm that she needed to find DNA matching between the envelope seal of the greeting card and the July 31st 1969 letters, stating "Depending on whether those DNA's match each other, might allow me to include or exclude Arthur Leigh Allen as potentially contributing the DNA on the Zodiac letters". The act of later ruling out all three suspects, including Arthur Leigh Allen, implied she had found a DNA match between these two separate correspondences. Even if she had swabbed the outside of the letters to keep the 'show' on the road, it would still imply (using her words) that a match between separate communications must be found before ruling Arthur Leigh Allen in or out as "contributing the DNA on the Zodiac letters". But what are the realistic chances of finding a DNA match between the Dripping Pen card envelope and one of the July 31st 1969 letters by swabbing the outside of each correspondence? The concluding elimination of the suspects near the finale of the show seemed to suggest, one way or another, she did. The subsequent reluctance of the participants in the documentary to confirm the validity of the testing and the new round of testing in 2018, appears to negate the ABC Primetime documentary as a reliable venture. 

But here we are again in 2019, waiting on results from the latest attempt to secure a viable genetic fingerprint of Zodiac to submit to GEDmatch. "Vallejo police Detective Terry Poyser, who has worked the Zodiac case for four years, said his agency has submitted two envelopes that contained letters from the Zodiac Killer for a type of advanced DNA analysis that previously had not been available in the case. Poyser declined to identify the lab, but said it would attempt to obtain a full DNA profile from saliva on the envelope flap and stamps. He said he expected to have results back from the lab as soon as in the next few weeks, and almost certainly by summer. The department has three letters and two envelopes from the Zodiac, Poyser said. The envelopes each have a double stamp, which Poyser said was a trademark of the Zodiac. They originally were sent to the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Francisco Examiner, he said. The third letter was sent to the Vallejo Times-Herald, but does not have an envelope with it, he said. Allen largely was cleared as a suspect in 2002, when investigators obtained a partial DNA sample from the envelopes that didn't match his. Poyser said that DNA profile only had a few markers on it, less than half of the genetic points needed to definitively clear or identify a suspect". Sacramento Bee.

Again, the emphasis squarely focuses on the July 31st 1969 envelopes and stamps, despite the much earlier Zodiac correspondences showing a tendency toward "few cells" being discovered. The July 31st 1969 letters were not available during the San Francisco Police Department DNA testing in the late 1990s, but why are the Kathleen Johns and Little List letters seemingly passing under the radar again in this latest round of testing, when the 2000 SFPD report clearly states that "cells were found" on these communications? The apparent omission of the Exorcist letter for submission this time round, despite being "loaded with saliva and cells" according to Criminalist Alan Keel, may further bolster the notion that law enforcement have no confidence in this being a Zodiac letter. Does the apparent reluctance to consider the Kathleen Johns and Little List letters for testing in 2018, suggest an equal lack of confidence?

Were the July 31st 1969 letters submitted in 2018 because current law enforcement do believe in the validity of the findings of the 2002 documentary? After all, Detective Poyser did state "Allen largely was cleared as a suspect in 2002, when investigators obtained a partial DNA sample from the envelopes that didn't match his. Poyser said that DNA profile only had a few markers on it, less than half of the genetic points needed to definitively clear or identify a suspect". Law enforcement must believe that DNA was found on the sealed side of the envelopes and stamps from the July 31st 1969 letters, hence why they are focusing on these communications again, in the hope of finding a full or more complete DNA profile using more advanced technology. If law enforcement really believed the DNA testing from 2002 was only achieved by swabbing the exterior of the July 31st 1969 letters, then their unreserved targeting of these communications would be misplaced. But they seemingly don't believe this to be the case. ​They apparently don't share the reservations of the Zodiac community. 

It could be regarded as contradictory that the majority of the Zodiac community believe the Exorcist letter to be a genuine Zodiac correspondence - one that is widely touted as the final confirmed communication by the Bay Area murderer by ardent sleuths and law enforcement alike, which according to Alan Keel is "loaded with saliva and cells" - yet was seemingly roundly ignored in 2002, and once again in 2018, when this letter by all accounts should be the first port of call regarding biological material. It strongly suggests that the exhibited confidence in the January 29th 1974 letter is totally misplaced - and the Zodiac Killer may never have returned in 1974 at all.

DNA AND THE DAVID TOSCHI CONTROVERSY

Mike Rodelli wrote in his book, 'The Hunt for Zodiac:The Inconceivable Double Life of a Notorious Serial Killer', that Alan Keel, Criminalist at the San Francisco Police Department, San Francisco, California from 1996 to 1999 "revealed that there were two letters in possession of the department that, in contrast to the "true" Zodiac letters, had abundant saliva and DNA-containing oral epithelial cells on them, that DNA was easily extracted from these two letters, and that the DNA extracted from these two letters matched between them. These two letters were considered forgeries, since the "true" Zodiac verifiable letters had not been licked by the sender." Mike Rodelli also stated "In contrast (to earlier communications), Keel analyzes two other letters, one of which is the 1978 forgery, and finds that this letter and one of the 1974 letters are loaded with saliva and cells. He then easily extracts DNA from both of these letters using the more primitive DNA technology of that time and finds that the DNA matches between those two letters, thus proving that one person sent both."  

The San Francisco Police Department DNA report clearly states that the 1978 letter was tested for DNA (which was obtained) and deemed 'not an authentic Zodiac letter'. The only other letter in 1974 processed for DNA (where cells were found), was the Exorcist letter. Therefore, the two letters described by Alan Keel "as matching between them" had to be the 1978 letter and the Exorcist letter. If the 1978 letter is 'not an authentic Zodiac letter', then the Exorcist letter is 'not an authentic Zodiac letter' either. But how can the San Francisco Police Department claim that the 1978 letter is not an authentic Zodiac communication, when you don't have the Zodiac Killer's DNA to test it against? The only two possible answers, are that (Inspector) David Toschi, accused of forging the 1978 letter, had his DNA compared to the 1978 letter and it matched, thus proving it couldn't have been written by Zodiac, or the DNA markers on the 1978 letter confirmed it was written by a woman. Females typically have two of the same kind of sex chromosome (XX), and are called the homogametic sex. Males typically have two different kinds of sex chromosomes (XY), and are called the heterogametic sex. 

If we conclude that David Toschi hadn't forged either the 1978 letter or the Exorcist letter, and the "DNA matched between them" as stated by Criminalist Alan Keel, then we are left to conclude that both were authored by a woman. However, if this had been determined to be the case, why not release this to the public and officially exonerate David Toschi beyond any doubt and clear this perceived stain on his character. This would be the least you would do for a respected and dedicated law enforcement officer, who served the San Francisco Police Department from 1952 to 1987. The fact they didn't do this, suggests that both the 1978 letter and Exorcist letter were not authored by a woman. But this once again places the spotlight back onto David Toschi as the only other option. 

It has been claimed that a palm print discovered on the Exorcist letter has ruled out Arthur Leigh Allen as the contributor. Michael Butterfield wrote "The San Francisco Police department also announced that Allen’s palm print did not match the palm print found on the Zodiac’s “Exorcist” letter of 1974". Zodiac Killer Facts. If this palm print ruled out Arthur Leigh Allen as the author of the Exorcist letter, then it could also be used to rule out David Toschi. If the Exorcist letter and 1978 letter are inextricably linked through DNA and therefore the stamps and envelopes were licked by the same individual, as inferred by Mike Rodelli (from the findings of Criminalist Alan Keel), then by logical extension, if David Toschi was ruled out as the author of the Exorcist letter by palm print, he would also be ruled out as the author of the 1978 letter. 

Deputy Police Chief Clement DeAmicis stated on July 14th 1978, regarding the Exorcist and 1978 letter "We are looking into the authentication of the letters. We have submitted a number of specimens of handwriting. Toschi's is one". Referring to other Zodiac correspondence he continued "We want to know whether they are authentic or whether they are written by somebody we know." Why wouldn't you just compare David Toschi's palm print to the Exorcist letter, as they had apparently done to rule out Arthur Leigh Allen. The San Francisco Police Department stated in 1999 "The Police Department has never made a statement regarding accusations that Toschi faked a Zodiac letter one way or another. We will confirm that not all Zodiac letters are authentic". This final line tells you everything you need to know. The only way they can claim definitively that "not all Zodiac letters are authentic", is if they have confirmed this with DNA. Efforts to harbor DNA from these communications began in the late 1990s - the same time this SFPD statement was released. This lack of transparency from the San Francisco Police Department, the bold claim of ruling out the 1978 letter through DNA (without having confirmed Zodiac DNA), the failure to openly rule out David Toschi using the palm print, and the reluctance to publicly exonerate David Toschi using the 'apparent DNA match between the 1978 letter and Exorcist letter', unfortunately tells you everything. If the San Francisco Police Department have ruled out the 1978 letter through DNA, and not because it's a woman, then it doesn't leave too many other options.

Zodiac researcher Mike Rodelli recalled a conversation with Alan Keel, Criminalist at the San Francisco Police Department, San Francisco, California from 1996 to 1999. He stated "In contrast (to earlier communications), Keel analyzes two other letters, one of which is the 1978 forgery, and finds that this letter and one of the 1974 letters are loaded with saliva and cells. He then easily extracts DNA from both of these letters using the more primitive DNA technology of that time and finds that the DNA matches between those two letters, thus proving that one person sent both".

For these two communications to be matched definitively using DNA, "proving that one person sent both", they must have revealed full DNA profiles - because a partial DNA profile in one could not have proved conclusive. The DNA tests conducted by the San Francisco Police Department in the late 1990s. indicated that subsequent to 1974 only the January 29th 1974 'Exorcist' letter had been processed and "cells found". There was no mention of the other 1974 letters being processed. Therefore, one could conclude that the two letters discovered to match one another (according to Keel), were the 1974 'Exorcist' letter and the April 24th 1978 letter - and therefore written by the same individual.

The 1978 letter is listed in the report as "not authentic Zodiac letter". If the San Francisco Police Department concluded the 1978 letter was not an authentic Zodiac letter, then the 'Exorcist' letter would not be either. This brings forth some interesting questions.    

Michael Butterfield wrote an article entitled 'Zodiac DNA:The Magic Bullet' on his 'Zodiac Killer Facts' website, stating
"In the late 1990s, San Francisco police obtained DNA from a suspected Zodiac letter, and the DNA did not match Allen’s DNA".. The San Francisco Police Department surely wouldn't have used the DNA obtained from the April 24th 1978 letter for comparison, as they themselves had deemed it "not authentic Zodiac correspondence" and it had long been considered questionable material. Therefore, they must have obtained this DNA from another letter they "suspected" was a Zodiac letter, to compare to known suspects. But if the 'Exorcist' letter (as Mike Rodelli suspects) and the 1978 letter matched in DNA - were written by the same individual - and so by association were considered "not authentic Zodiac correspondence", then which "suspected Zodiac letter" did the San Francisco Police Department use to compare to Allen's DNA. 

In the San Francisco Police Department report the only letters in which they stated "cells found", other than the 'Exorcist' letter, were the July 24th 1970 'Kathleen Johns' letter and July 26th 1970 'Little List' letter. Every correspondence tested prior to July 24th 1970 were labelled 'Envelope processed for DNA - few cells'. The 'Exorcist' letter came under scrutiny, alongside the 1978 letter, when Inspector David Toschi fell under the microscope in 1978 for forging one or both. So, would it be likely the 'Exorcist' or 1978 letter would be chosen by the San Francisco Police Department in the 1990s as a "suspected Zodiac letter" (and for the reasons given above), and used to rule out Arthur Leigh Allen's DNA? They surely would have turned to more credible sources. But they only had two other letters where "cells were found".

In 2002, Dr. Cydne Holt performed a new round of tests on some of the early 1969 Zodiac letters. Having failed to find suitable DNA on these letters (as suggested by the "few cells" findings of the 1990s), it has now come to light that the ABC Primetime documentary scoured the outside of the envelopes and stamps for DNA instead, thereby negating any findings as to the identity of the Zodiac Killer.

But why were they searching for Zodiac DNA, to compare to suspects such as Arthur Leigh Allen and Kjell Qvale, when "in the late 1990s, San Francisco police obtained DNA from a suspected Zodiac letter, and the DNA did not match Allen’s DNA". The new round of tests performed in 2002 would now suggest that the DNA they found in the 1990s from a "suspected Zodiac letter" was no longer believed to be from Zodiac. 

In 2018 "Vallejo police Detective Terry Poyser, who has worked the Zodiac case for four years, said his agency has submitted two envelopes that contained letters from the Zodiac Killer for a type of advanced DNA analysis that previously had not been available in the case. The department has three letters and two envelopes from the Zodiac, Poyser said. The envelopes each have a double stamp, which Poyser said was a trademark of the Zodiac. They originally were sent to the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Francisco Examiner, he said. The third letter was sent to the Vallejo Times-Herald, but does not have an envelope with it, he said". Sacramento Bee.

However, these are the July 31st 1969 envelopes and stamps already tested by Dr. Cydne Holt in 2002, which failed to produce any viable results. The hope is that more advanced DNA analysis may turn up something new. But what about the "suspected Zodiac letter" from the 1990s with "cells found". Couldn't this be examined using advanced DNA analysis? This letter has apparently already produced a DNA profile to rule out Allen, so why is it being ignored - or is it?

In a poll of 93 people conducted on this site, 85% believe the 'Exorcist' letter to be genuine Zodiac correspondence, whereas in a poll of 94 people conducted on this site, only 54% believe the 1978 letter to be genuine Zodiac correspondence. If Mike Rodelli's suspicions are true, then both the 'Exorcist' and 1978  letter are "not authentic Zodiac correspondence". If the San Francisco Police Department have long considered these two communications as not credible, then which "suspected Zodiac letter" was used to rule out Arthur Leigh Allen in the 1990s - and can it be used again for advanced DNA analysis?

We have long been led to believe the 'Exorcist' letter was the last confirmed communication by the Zodiac Killer. If the poll on this site were true of the entire Zodiac community, then 85% of people believe the 'Exorcist' letter to be genuine Zodiac correspondence. If the other 1974 letters were not tested or found to contain DNA (as the SFPD report suggests), then it is extremely likely a full DNA profile exists for the 'Exorcist' letter (shown at the top of this article).

For those who believe the January 29th 1974 'Exorcist' letter to be an authentic mailing from the Zodiac Killer with a full DNA profile, you should be asking "why hasn't this been run through GEDmatch".

I have just finished reading 'The Hunt for Zodiac: The Inconceivable Double Life of a Notorious Serial Killer' by Zodiac researcher Mike Rodelli. While I don't agree with everything in the book, it is an extremely well researched and informative addition to the Zodiac Killer story, even if you don't arrive at the same conclusions on the murderer's identity. For beginners and seasoned veterans alike, it will not disappoint as a comprehensive introduction to the case, as well as a complimentary addition to any existing knowledge you may already have. While fresh in my mind, I would like to explore one important feature of the book, regarding the topic of DNA, which is currently hanging over the case like a dose of skeptical optimism.. 

Mike tackles this problem in extensive detail, particularly with regards to the viability of the DNA tests conducted by Dr. Cydne Holt in the 2002 ABC Primetime documentary, in addition to his discussions with Alan Keel, Criminalist at the San Francisco Police Department, San Francisco, California from 1996 to 1999.

The disputed results of the 2002 'showpiece' are now well documented, however, Mike delves further into the DNA analysis with respect to two later 'Zodiac' letters, namely the 1974 'Exorcist' letter and the subsequent 1978 'I Am Back With You' letter, both mailed after a lengthy silence from the Zodiac Killer - leading some to question their authenticity. 

Mike recalls information of his conversation with Alan Keel: "In contrast (to earlier communications), Keel analyzes two other letters, one of which is the 1978 forgery, and finds that this letter and one of the 1974 letters are loaded with saliva and cells. He then easily extracts DNA from both of these letters using the more primitive DNA technology of that time and finds that the DNA matches between those two letters, thus proving that one person sent both." 

This is a stunning revelation (if correct) when we consider the findings of the San Francisco Police Department laboratory in the 1990s, in which there was a notable absence of saliva/DNA present on the envelopes prior to the 1974 'Exorcist' letter. Would a killer who seemingly didn't lick any of his envelopes or stamps throughout the majority of his letter-writing campaign, now suddenly break that habit in the 1974 and 1978 communications? The SFPD report, shown here, references the April 24th 1978 letter, claiming that the "DNA SAMPLE OBTAINED - NOT AUTHENTIC ZODIAC LETTER".   

This lack of saliva or DNA on the earlier letters may have become more evident, as Dr..Cydne Holt struggled to generate any tangible results from the sealed sections of stamps and envelopes using more advanced forensic DNA testing in 2002, compared to the earlier and more primitive testing undertaken in the 1990s. This apparent dichotomy brings into stark reality the essence of Mike Rodelli's argument.     

The bold statement of "DNA  sample obtained- not authentic Zodiac letter" opens up the proverbial can of worms. On first reading, it gives the impression that they have something to compare it to. How would they know the DNA sample obtained from the 1978 letter was not from Zodiac, if they didn't have Zodiac's DNA? If they had Zodiac's DNA in the 1990s, this wasn't the impression given by the search for Zodiac DNA in the 2002 ABC Primetime documentary.

"DNA  sample obtained- not authentic Zodiac letter" could imply they know the sex of the DNA present on the 1978 letter, and therefore by extension, not the Zodiac Killer (as suggested on many forums). But, it could imply they know the identity of the individual who contributed the DNA to the 1978 letter, and having identified that individual, know they were not the Zodiac Killer. This lack of clarity has led Zodiac researchers to question the transparency of the San Francisco Police Department.     

We know that a partial DNA profile from a letter can exclude suspects, but not definitively identify an individual. Therefore, the apparent (but unconfirmed) revelation of Alan Keel that "DNA matches between" one of the 1974 letters (possibly the 'Exorcist' letter) and 1978 'I Am Back With You' letter, would suggest that full DNA profiles have been obtained for both letters.
​If only a partial DNA profile had been obtained from the 1978 letter (much like the exclusion of suspects) it can only be excluded as matching a profile from the 'Exorcist' letter (if this had a full DNA profile), but not definitively matched to it.
As such, the statement of "DNA matches between those two letters, thus proving that one person sent both", would be indicative of a full DNA profile obtained from both the 1974 and 1978 letters in the 1990s.. 

For those who believe the 'Exorcist' letter to be genuine Zodiac correspondence, then this could imply that a full DNA profile may exist for this letter (or one of the 'lesser' 1974 letters), and consequently the profile of the Zodiac Killer. However, the search for Zodiac's DNA in 2002 negates this premise - unless the San Francisco Police Department knew all along that both the 'Exorcist'/74 letter and 1978 letter were not mailed by the Zodiac Killer. In fact, the Exorcist and April 24th 1978 letters were the only two communications mentioned with regards to the controversy surrounding Inspector David Toschi, who led the investigation for many years. He came under suspicion for forging the 1978 letter, after the San Francisco Chronicle columnist and author, Armistead Maupin, discovered that David Toschi had mailed fictitious fan mail to a series he had written, with the inclusion of the detective.  ​

​Armistead Maupin had first met David Toschi in 1976 while he was writing the 'Tales of the City' series. Wanting to energize the series with a murder mystery element, he contacted San Francisco Chronicle reporter Bob Popp, who then introduced him to David Toschi. The police inspector would make a debut appearance in 'Tales of the City' on September 10th that year, with a character based on his attributes. Further episodes would follow under his real name, as a friend and confidant to Armistead Maupin's fictitious Detective Inspector Henry Tandy. 

Here is an excerpt from the San Francisco Chronicle, published on July 14th 1978 "Police officials are investigating the possibility that Inspector David Toschi forged a Zodiac letter in The Chronicle in 1974 as well as a similar letter the newspaper received earlier this year. Toschi - who said he was interrogated officially last Friday about both letters - has denied writing any letters in the guise of Zodiac, the killer of six who eluded capture by Toschi for nearly nine years before the detective was transferred out of the homicide detail last week. Deputy Clement DeAmicis, who had recommended the transfer to Chief Charles Gain, confirmed yesterday the probe was being extended".  

The fact that Inspector David Toschi was questioned regarding these two communications, only heightens the mystery surrounding Alan Keel's statement of "the DNA matches between those two letters, thus proving that one person sent both" and the San Francisco Police Department's report concerning the 1978 letter, in which it noted that a "DNA  sample was obtained, but indicated it was not an authentic Zodiac letter".

We don't know for certain that Alan Keel is referring to the 'Exorcist' letter when he stated "one of which is the 1978 forgery, and finds that this letter and one of the 1974 letters are loaded with saliva and cells".  However, since the 'Exorcist' letter for the large part has been widely regarded as the last confirmed correspondence mailed by the Zodiac Killer, as opposed to the other 1974 communications,  it would be the logical correspondence to test for Zodiac Killer DNA  when searching for the Bay Area murderer. Testing the other much more questionable 1974 mailings would not make as much sense - which is probably why the San Francisco Police Department report is blank or omitted next to these communications. 

The 'go to' mailing, when testing for Zodiac DNA from the 1974 letters, would undoubtedly be the 'Exorcist' letter rather than its dubious companions. So, if this was the case and the statement of Alan Keel were true, then the 'Exorcist' mailing would not be an authentic Zodiac correspondence - and as a result - would quite possibly shrink the Zodiac reign by nearly three years.