Zodiackillersite.com

Due to ethical concerns, a typical forensic DNA profile is not going to demonstrate anything about a person's physical characteristics. These profiles are generated by looking at genes that do not express any particular characteristic. However, a whole genome profile would allow you to know everything about the person. I don't think there is any whole.genome forensic kit, though. The short answer is that knowing a forensic DNA profile is going to tell you nothing about the person's physical characteristics. The type used by Parabon will give you quite a bit of information.

Dag MacLugh wrote:Question: what physical characteristics, if any, can be assumed from a DNA profile?

Edited: sites like 23andme can offer a broad general description and a website named “promethease” can offer a bit more detail for about $10.

Eye color, ethnic composition, height, hair type / color baldness and probable ailments can be ascertained with a high degree of confidence it’s not perfect but it will be close.

the parabon details are hit or miss. they obviously highlight the cases where their "dna sketch" was close but not those where it wasn't (ear/ons wasn't close at all). the fact is you can make some guesses from dna (likely skin color, some idea of eye color) but even those are more likelihoods than statistical certainties. you can't tell anything about hair style, weight, or other features gained after birth.

in my experience they'd do much better to at least try the genetic genealogy route of whatever dna they have, even if it's not zodiac's. if touch dna from the cab turns out to be someone unrelated it still answers a huge question - do they have any physical evidence that can tie a suspect to zodiac?

masootz wrote:the parabon details are hit or miss. they obviously highlight the cases where their "dna sketch" was close but not those where it wasn't (ear/ons wasn't close at all). the fact is you can make some guesses from dna (likely skin color, some idea of eye color) but even those are more likelihoods than statistical certainties. you can't tell anything about hair style, weight, or other features gained after birth.

in my experience they'd do much better to at least try the genetic genealogy route of whatever dna they have, even if it's not zodiac's. if touch dna from the cab turns out to be someone unrelated it still answers a huge question - do they have any physical evidence that can tie a suspect to zodiac?

Tom Voigt stated that the cab is still in SFPD's evidence warehouse, I wonder if the bloody finger prints are still there and if touch
DNA could still be extracted from it ?

monarch wrote:Tom Voigt stated that the cab is still in SFPD's evidence warehouse, I wonder if the bloody finger prints are still there and if touch
DNA could still be extracted from it ?

If there was any way to extract a DNA sample from a 50 year old bloody fingerprint, wouldn't that DNA recovered more likely show the DNA of the owner of the blood?

Marshall wrote:

monarch wrote:Tom Voigt stated that the cab is still in SFPD's evidence warehouse, I wonder if the bloody finger prints are still there and if touch
DNA could still be extracted from it ?

If there was any way to extract a DNA sample from a 50 year old bloody fingerprint, wouldn't that DNA recovered more likely show the DNA of the owner of the blood?

I'm not sure, I know they can isolate DNA from multiple sources such as in cases of gang rape but I don't know if they can do
that with touch DNA.

Hi,

I think we can all agree that it has taken years to isolate any DNA from the Z letters, if they indeed have done so. This speaks of the scarcity of DNA on the letters, which is consistent with the notion that they were not simply licked by the sender. And we can only hope that if they have DNA, it matches across at least two letters, thus proving that it likely belongs to the sender, unlike the joke SFPD sample from 2002. That having been said, given how long it has taken, I think it is clear that unlike the two forgeries Keel told both me and Lafferty about at different times, where the sender had licked the letters and there was abundant DNA to be found on them, what LE has had to resort to with the Z letters is presumably techniques that detect only the minutest amounts of DNA. And this argues for what I have been saying for a long time: the Z letters and stamps were not licked by the sender and if there is DNA on the letters it is because he failed to wear gloves when applying the stamps.

Does anyone know if, when using touch DNA or low cell count, if they are ever able to develop a full profile, or if these are usually fragments of DNA that are found at such low levels? In other words, how likely is it that they have a full profile that would be suitable for Parabon to even use?

Mike R, it is possible to develop a full forensic nuclear DNA profile from one cell's worth of DNA. Defense lawyers like me will question the accuracy and relevance of such a profile, but it is scientifically possible.

I had a capital murder case where the DNA profile was raised from probably as few as five epithelial cells. With low copy number (touch DNA), it is possible to raise a good profile from a tiny, tiny sample.

Hi,

Ok. Thanks for the info. Let's see what happens as the year progresses.

IthinkIknow wrote:Mike R, it is possible to develop a full forensic nuclear DNA profile from one cell's worth of DNA. Defense lawyers like me will question the accuracy and relevance of such a profile, but it is scientifically possible.

I had a capital murder case where the DNA profile was raised from probably as few as five epithelial cells. With low copy number (touch DNA), it is possible to raise a good profile from a tiny, tiny sample.

It makes me slightly worried about Zodiac's prosecution were he alive and arrested. Unless his DNA is found from a crime scene, they can only link him to the crimes via the letters. It isn't like the EARONS case where DNA was recovered from numerous scenes. Defense lawyers would drag out the case or try to have it thrown out on technicality.