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.
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]