For these two communications to be matched definitively using DNA, "proving that one person sent both", they must have revealed full DNA profiles, otherwise, 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.
"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 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 'Button' 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 for forging one or both in 1978. 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".
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."