Zodiackillersite.com

I am posting this DNA report in the hopes that it can bring forth a larger discussion about the ethics of DNA research and law enforcement. This is not a hypothetical discussion. The DNA is real.

Posted below is a DNA report from a partial DNA that was obtained from a possible relative of Ted Kaczynski. This person may or may not be a blood relative, so the DNA is not 100% verifiable.

What are the ramifications of a private citizen collecting and posting a partial DNA? What are the legal ramifications? Should I be allowed to post this DNA? Can law enforcement use this DNA at all? If so, what would happen if they were able to match parts of this DNA to a crime scene DNA, would it be enough to try to open a case against TJK?

I'm interested in what other people think.

Sorry, I had to delete the file. PM if you want to see it.

I would like an immediate comparison made with CJB...like right frickin now..Id like to finally know if TK was frequenting college campus in the cali area seeking employment before he was hired at berkeley..and of course if he did commit the CJB homicide..TK certainly did have a violent streak in him..good work getting something done on TK darla

Ted's brother refused to give DNA, right? I'm just trying to remember. Also, did anyone catch David on Oprah Where Are They Now recently?

As long as that person consented to it, you are fine to post it. If not...it depends on the state. Most states don't consider it to be private.

You are also free to give it to LE, although they couldn't use it as evidence. But that is a tip you are giving as a citizen, just the same as any other information that might be useful, and they can use that to investigate.

I couldn't say whether a hypothetical positive match on that DNA would constitute probable cause enough to issue a warrant for Kaczynski DNA to be obtained and tested.

If they did get Ted K's DNA, what would they compare it to? The only Zodiac Killer DNA they have is from the stamps on the envelopes, right? And that is not really considered top-of-line grade A DNA as I understand it. Plus the Z could have theoretically used somebody else's saliva for the stamps, especially if the Z was a smart guy and could foresee that DNA would eventually be a big deal in criminal convictions.

It almost certainly isn't top-of-the-line.

One common take on the Z-DNA, however, is that while it's not good enough to be entered into CODIS and can't be used to conclusively nail anyone as Z, it can be used to rule out suspects. Allen was apparently ruled out, as were certain other suspects.

The DNA business is murky, though. Nobody seems to know precisely what they have and precisely where it comes from.

Then there is DNA from Cheri Jo too..there are fingerprints on cabs and phone booths and car doors...yet none seem to match anyone, or each other.

Mike R. launched into this topic awhile back.
http://www.zodiackillersite.com/viewtop ... 60&start=0

I have dug up the Chronicle quote he references:

(Perez) also said she hopes authorities can find DNA on the stamps of letters that the Zodiac sent and match them to herself or her father. The DNA from the Zodiac evidence, however, may not be reliable, investigators warn.

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Wom ... 162785.php

So there you have it -- the DNA that famously "cleared" Allen, KQ, Charles Clifton Collins, and possibly others "may not be reliable." Yikes.

Of course it never was completely reliable since they got it off the stamps which may or may not have been licked by the Z. Plus I saw on one of the TV shows that the amount they could get from the stamps was very small, so that's a problem. The lady who was doing the DNA stuff on that TV show just gave the impression she wasn't really sure about it. She said they could tell for sure there was human DNA on the stamps, but so what? Not everybody licks stamps; he could have used a sponge with somebody else's DNA on it. Or if he knew that DNA might be a big deal in the future he might have gotten somebody else's saliva somewhere to throw LE off the track. What about the Cheri Jo Bates DNA? I've read there was no sexual molestation so what's the source, quantity, and reliability of the DNA sample?

EndOfTheWorld wrote:What about the Cheri Jo Bates DNA? I've read there was no sexual molestation so what's the source, quantity, and reliability of the DNA sample?

Hair, I think. Reliability: Well, depends on who you ask. What is more or less in the open is that Riverside PD tested this DNA against their prime suspect - and found no match. So, one would assume the sample as such is good enough. But then again, RPD apparently haven't completely abandoned said suspect - which may or may not say something about the nature of the sample. *

* It has been suggested they entertain some kind of multiple perp angle - among other things. The RPD investigation isn't exactly transparent, so it's hard to tell.