Click image to enlarge In the San Francisco Examiner on August 3rd 1978, four experts, Keith Woodward (head of Los Angeles documents department), John Shimoda (Postal Service crime laboratory), Robert Prouty (Chief documents section/Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation) and Terry Pasco (also Criminal Identification and Investigation), all deemed the 1978 letter a fake. Keith Woodward described the 1978 letter "a carefully drawn copy of the true Zodiac printing". He concluded it "was a poor attempt by an unknown writer". John Shimoda declared it "an attempt to duplicate Zodiac letters and is not authentic". Robert Prouty and Terry Pasco said basically the same thing, while Robert Graysmith disingenuously turned on this letter when he realized the DNA extracted from it didn't match the profile of Arthur Leigh Allen, claiming a light table may have been employed to hoax the letter. He then boldly trumpeted the above arguments of handwriting analysis - a subjective analysis - that has forever divided document examiners in the case of JonBenet Ramsey and the three-page ransom note supposedly authored by a "foreign faction".
Handwriting analysis cannot be used to exclusively and definitively argue for the authenticity, or otherwise, of a Zodiac communication. However, it can be used as a supporting argument where other evidence exists. This still hasn't stopped vociferous sections of the Zodiac community buying into the notion of an authenticated list of Zodiac communications based solely upon the narrative they have been sold from day one.
Let us look at the words of John Shimoda, who stated that the 1978 letter was "an attempt to duplicate Zodiac letters and is not authentic". The author of the 1978 letter was that good at duplicating Zodiac letters, they failed to duplicate the opening introduction of "This is the Zodiac speaking", which was always self-contained on a separate line in every confirmed Zodiac communication mailed to the San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Examiner and Los Angeles Times prior to 1978. The hoaxer had four examples of this to copy from the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper, when it released images of the October 13th 1969, November 8th 1969, April 20th 1970 and March 13th 1971 letters to the public (see images below). The hoaxer failed to copy any of these. Instead, they wrote "This is the Zodiac speaking I", mimicking the Melvin Belli letter and the punctuation error present in the accompanying text - despite this communication being the only example of this deviant introduction up to April 24th 1978. The author of the 1978 letter had the January 29th 1974 Exorcist letter available to them - widely published in the San Francisco Chronicle on January 31st 1974 - yet they failed to misspell "truly" to "truley", clearly evident in the Exorcist letter. The author of the 1978 letter failed to add a customary running total, which would have been the easy option to choose for somebody wanting to convince us they were Zodiac. Instead they placed the word "guess". The author of the 1978 letter failed to keep the "This is the Zodiac speaking" introduction in line with the text beneath it (thanks Druzer). In the 1978 letter they used "indented writing" (to indent is to begin text with a blank space between it and the margin). This absence of indented writing during the introduction phase was present in every published letter up to 1978 (see below). So, you can see that the claim of the 1978 letter author attempting to "duplicate Zodiac letters" from the newspapers, carries no merit whatsoever. This individual wasn't attempting to copy anybody.
Handwriting analysis cannot be used to exclusively and definitively argue for the authenticity, or otherwise, of a Zodiac communication. However, it can be used as a supporting argument where other evidence exists. This still hasn't stopped vociferous sections of the Zodiac community buying into the notion of an authenticated list of Zodiac communications based solely upon the narrative they have been sold from day one.
Let us look at the words of John Shimoda, who stated that the 1978 letter was "an attempt to duplicate Zodiac letters and is not authentic". The author of the 1978 letter was that good at duplicating Zodiac letters, they failed to duplicate the opening introduction of "This is the Zodiac speaking", which was always self-contained on a separate line in every confirmed Zodiac communication mailed to the San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Examiner and Los Angeles Times prior to 1978. The hoaxer had four examples of this to copy from the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper, when it released images of the October 13th 1969, November 8th 1969, April 20th 1970 and March 13th 1971 letters to the public (see images below). The hoaxer failed to copy any of these. Instead, they wrote "This is the Zodiac speaking I", mimicking the Melvin Belli letter and the punctuation error present in the accompanying text - despite this communication being the only example of this deviant introduction up to April 24th 1978. The author of the 1978 letter had the January 29th 1974 Exorcist letter available to them - widely published in the San Francisco Chronicle on January 31st 1974 - yet they failed to misspell "truly" to "truley", clearly evident in the Exorcist letter. The author of the 1978 letter failed to add a customary running total, which would have been the easy option to choose for somebody wanting to convince us they were Zodiac. Instead they placed the word "guess". The author of the 1978 letter failed to keep the "This is the Zodiac speaking" introduction in line with the text beneath it (thanks Druzer). In the 1978 letter they used "indented writing" (to indent is to begin text with a blank space between it and the margin). This absence of indented writing during the introduction phase was present in every published letter up to 1978 (see below). So, you can see that the claim of the 1978 letter author attempting to "duplicate Zodiac letters" from the newspapers, carries no merit whatsoever. This individual wasn't attempting to copy anybody.
If there is one letter that "suspect chasers" have a vested interest in dismissing out of hand, it's the 1978 letter (because a DNA sample has been obtained from it). If their suspect's DNA is available for comparison to a genuine Zodiac letter tomorrow, then it would only be a matter of days or weeks before their suspect is possibly confined to the compost heap of history, along with many other poor suspects in this case. They cannot take that chance, so play the odds and reject the letter beforehand. It is in the interest of "suspect chasers" to never accept the bloody taxicab fingerprint as originating from Zodiac (if their suspect's fingerprints exist on file), to never accept that Zodiac licked the stamps and envelopes, to never accept the 1978 letter as genuine, and for a minority, that DNA is never found in the Zodiac case. The longer they can promote their suspect, the better.
The Zodiac community have been eager to constantly enquire about the round of DNA testing reported in 2018, but show little interest in submitting the 1978 letter for familial DNA analysis. The reason for this apathy, is that many have looked at the 1978 communication and concluded it wasn't authored by the Zodiac Killer, primarily because they didn't like the handwriting or the tone of the letter. You cannot argue with research like this. For those who believe the 1978 letter is genuine, the search for Zodiac DNA is over.
The Zodiac community have been eager to constantly enquire about the round of DNA testing reported in 2018, but show little interest in submitting the 1978 letter for familial DNA analysis. The reason for this apathy, is that many have looked at the 1978 communication and concluded it wasn't authored by the Zodiac Killer, primarily because they didn't like the handwriting or the tone of the letter. You cannot argue with research like this. For those who believe the 1978 letter is genuine, the search for Zodiac DNA is over.
RSS Feed
