The term "fingerprint of value" can refer to the evidential value of a physical fingerprint in forensic science. A "fingerprint of value" refers to a latent fingerprint impression that has enough quality and detail for a forensic examiner to make a reliable identification or exclusion. This is determined by factors like the clarity, quantity, and relationship of features within the print. While sometimes a full print is left, a partial or smudged print can still be of value if it contains sufficient information for a comparison. Evidential value refers to how useful a fingerprint is as evidence. A high-quality print with clear minutiae points (unique ridge characteristics) has a high value for comparison and identification.
When the Zodiac Killer delivered his three-page letter to the San Francisco Examiner on the morning of August 4th 1969, he did it by hand at the newspapers offices located on Third & Market streets. The FBI files made no mention of an envelope, which is why they described the Zodiac Killer three-page letter as "undated" and never gave a mailing location. It is fairly clear at this point that the Zodiac Killer placed the three pages together and folded them at least twice, in such a way, that the third page with the Zodiac crosshairs and wording "no address" faced the receiver. Having just been sent a letter from the Zodiac Killer a matter of days earlier (on July 31st 1969) adorned with the crosshairs symbol, the Zodiac Killer was obviously highlighting a recognisable feature to the San Francisco Examiner to prioritize this communication.
When the Zodiac Killer delivered his three-page letter to the San Francisco Examiner on the morning of August 4th 1969, he did it by hand at the newspapers offices located on Third & Market streets. The FBI files made no mention of an envelope, which is why they described the Zodiac Killer three-page letter as "undated" and never gave a mailing location. It is fairly clear at this point that the Zodiac Killer placed the three pages together and folded them at least twice, in such a way, that the third page with the Zodiac crosshairs and wording "no address" faced the receiver. Having just been sent a letter from the Zodiac Killer a matter of days earlier (on July 31st 1969) adorned with the crosshairs symbol, the Zodiac Killer was obviously highlighting a recognisable feature to the San Francisco Examiner to prioritize this communication.
AUGUST 4TH 1969 "DEBUT OF ZODIAC" LETTER. CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE The above FBI file noted "one latent fingerprint of value developed on second page of letter (Q2), and one latent fingerprint of value developed on third page of letter (Q3)". This doesn't necessarily tell us how many fingerprints were noted on the pages, only that two of "value" were retrieved to enable a search through the extortion section of their single fingerprint file. One might expect the inner pages of an automatically manufactured writing pad to be fingerprint free, and for the Zodiac Killer to have been careful when writing on these three sheets of paper. Of course, when this folded communication was handled by the receiver, they would have certainly touched the outer third page and possibly second page when separating the three-page communication, but this person (and any subsequent handler of the pages) could easily have been eliminated as the donor of the two "fingerprints of value" collected from Q2 and Q3.
It can be argued that these two "fingerprints of value" did not belong to any San Francisco Examiner staff, because had they, there would have been no need to put them through the extortion file search to seek a match. Therefore, these latent fingerprints were likely deposited on the two pages prior to their arrival at the San Francisco Examiner offices. If they weren't deposited on the pages during the manufacturing process, who would have touched these blank pages prior to the Zodiac Killer writing on them, other than the Bay Area murderer himself? If these two latent fingerprints on two separate pages had matched one another and not any San Francisco Examiner worker, it would have been of greater significance. Two separate digit impressions from the killer in 1969, not so much.
It can be argued that these two "fingerprints of value" did not belong to any San Francisco Examiner staff, because had they, there would have been no need to put them through the extortion file search to seek a match. Therefore, these latent fingerprints were likely deposited on the two pages prior to their arrival at the San Francisco Examiner offices. If they weren't deposited on the pages during the manufacturing process, who would have touched these blank pages prior to the Zodiac Killer writing on them, other than the Bay Area murderer himself? If these two latent fingerprints on two separate pages had matched one another and not any San Francisco Examiner worker, it would have been of greater significance. Two separate digit impressions from the killer in 1969, not so much.
The Zodiac Killer envelopes in this case had the possibility of being touched by any number of people on their journey to the newspapers, but once opened or recognised in advance as Zodiac, those individuals who have touched the writing paper itself should be identifiable, limited or non-existent. This should make any remaining and unaccounted "fingerprints of value" on the surface of any pages highly relevant in the search for the Zodiac Killer. If we have two confirmed Zodiac communications containing "fingerprints of value" on the writing pages of each (with elimination prints done), who could have donated these fingerprints in absence of the Zodiac Killer, who likely had exclusive access to his notepad? This becomes more significant on Zodiac communications mailed with multiple sheets, where less reason exists for fingerprints other than the killer to be present on page 2, 3 or 4 of any notebook or writing pad. In other words, inner pages protected by page one (from any family or friends).
There has long been interest in the comparison of prints from the taxicab of Paul Stine to the "Little List" letter mailed on July 26th 1970, and whether they originate from one individual. The "Little List" letter was a five-page offering presumably stacked in order within the envelope, so that anybody removing the contents should only reasonably have handled the front folded sheet of page 1 (the side with the introduction of "This is the Zodiac speaking"), or the rear of page 5 which was blank. There would have been absolutely no need to further contaminate the remainder of the communication with unnecessary fingerprints, bearing in mind the San Francisco Chronicle, should at this juncture, have been well versed by Zodiac investigators on how to handle Zodiac communications. There should have been no reason to touch pages 2, 3 or 4 (without gloves or at all), once the receiver had read the Zodiac introduction on page 1, assuming it wasn't recognised as a Zodiac communication before opening the envelope. Any fingerprints on pages 2, 3, 4 or 5, protected by page 1 of any writing pad (and excluding newspaper staff) should therefore be of increased importance to investigators. These pages were presumably written on consecutively by the Zodiac Killer - and as such - should not have been contaminated by hands other than the author. The page location and position of the latent fingerprint on the "Little List" letter should be factored into this equation. .
There has long been interest in the comparison of prints from the taxicab of Paul Stine to the "Little List" letter mailed on July 26th 1970, and whether they originate from one individual. The "Little List" letter was a five-page offering presumably stacked in order within the envelope, so that anybody removing the contents should only reasonably have handled the front folded sheet of page 1 (the side with the introduction of "This is the Zodiac speaking"), or the rear of page 5 which was blank. There would have been absolutely no need to further contaminate the remainder of the communication with unnecessary fingerprints, bearing in mind the San Francisco Chronicle, should at this juncture, have been well versed by Zodiac investigators on how to handle Zodiac communications. There should have been no reason to touch pages 2, 3 or 4 (without gloves or at all), once the receiver had read the Zodiac introduction on page 1, assuming it wasn't recognised as a Zodiac communication before opening the envelope. Any fingerprints on pages 2, 3, 4 or 5, protected by page 1 of any writing pad (and excluding newspaper staff) should therefore be of increased importance to investigators. These pages were presumably written on consecutively by the Zodiac Killer - and as such - should not have been contaminated by hands other than the author. The page location and position of the latent fingerprint on the "Little List" letter should be factored into this equation. .
There remains a possibility that the latent fingerprints recovered from Zodiac communications originate from the killer, but from different digits of either hand, or different areas of the same digit, So there could be "fingerprints of value" donated by the Zodiac Killer on a single letter (or many letters), but never from the same area of a particular digit. This may explain why people say there are no definitive fingerprints of the Zodiac Killer. But this could soon change, when it becomes possible to link different digit fingerprints to the same person.
"Columbia engineers have built a new AI that shatters a long-held belief in forensics–that fingerprints from different fingers of the same person are unique. It turns out they are similar, only we’ve been comparing fingerprints the wrong way. A team led by Columbia Engineering undergraduate senior Gabe Guo challenged this widely held presumption. Guo, who had no prior knowledge of forensics, found a public U.S. government database of some 60,000 fingerprints and fed them in pairs into an artificial intelligence-based system known as a deep contrastive network. Sometimes the pairs belonged to the same person (but different fingers), and sometimes they belonged to different people. Over time, the AI system, which the team designed by modifying a state-of-the-art framework, got better at telling when seemingly unique fingerprints belonged to the same person and when they didn’t. The accuracy for a single pair reached 77%. When multiple pairs were presented, the accuracy shot significantly higher, potentially increasing current forensic efficiency by more than tenfold". Engineering Columbia Edu.
With the advent of artificial intelligence and its possible application to the Zodiac Killer case, including the research by Columbia engineers on fingerprint comparison, we may be able to place multiple fingerprints from Zodiac letters and crime scenes into a computer, and confidentiality present an argument that some belong to one author, and ultimately one killer. Even though the fingerprints are different between the digits of one individual, they may very well be unique in design when looking at the angles and curvature of fingerprint patterns. This new concept has the potential to push the Zodiac case significantly forward in so many ways.
"Columbia engineers have built a new AI that shatters a long-held belief in forensics–that fingerprints from different fingers of the same person are unique. It turns out they are similar, only we’ve been comparing fingerprints the wrong way. A team led by Columbia Engineering undergraduate senior Gabe Guo challenged this widely held presumption. Guo, who had no prior knowledge of forensics, found a public U.S. government database of some 60,000 fingerprints and fed them in pairs into an artificial intelligence-based system known as a deep contrastive network. Sometimes the pairs belonged to the same person (but different fingers), and sometimes they belonged to different people. Over time, the AI system, which the team designed by modifying a state-of-the-art framework, got better at telling when seemingly unique fingerprints belonged to the same person and when they didn’t. The accuracy for a single pair reached 77%. When multiple pairs were presented, the accuracy shot significantly higher, potentially increasing current forensic efficiency by more than tenfold". Engineering Columbia Edu.
With the advent of artificial intelligence and its possible application to the Zodiac Killer case, including the research by Columbia engineers on fingerprint comparison, we may be able to place multiple fingerprints from Zodiac letters and crime scenes into a computer, and confidentiality present an argument that some belong to one author, and ultimately one killer. Even though the fingerprints are different between the digits of one individual, they may very well be unique in design when looking at the angles and curvature of fingerprint patterns. This new concept has the potential to push the Zodiac case significantly forward in so many ways.
RSS Feed
