Zodiackillersite.com

mike_r wrote:Hi Sandy-

No, there is more to it than that. The research LL and I did and the comments made to Ray Nixon by Maloney were made over time and long before Debbie Perez came along. The comments by Alan Keel about the envelopes not being licked came to me in 2007 and to LL, as well independently of my efforts. No, the statements leading to the notion that the DNA they now have not being reliable to rule anyone out came long before Debbie Perez and came from multiple sources.

But I am tired of rehashing all of that in gory detail, so we'll just have to puzzle over what Insp. Hofsass said.

Mike

Mike, I know that you did extensive work in getting the information you have had for many yrs now and thank you for all of that work. I am only reporting what she said to all of us and to LL who was there. She did say that the DNA they have was from the Stamps and envelopes so what you were told is very different than what she said to all of us. I spoke to LL about it and how happy I was to hear that we still have hope with that DNA and he agreed it was good news. There is so much confussion about many aspects of this case, including which letters are from the Zodiac to the fingerprints, the DNA and descriptions of a large stocky man to a much smaller person.
I didn't think I had heard anything about the DNA not being of any use untill after Deb Perez .I did hear that at least two suspects were tested with that DNA ,one being your suspect Mr. X ? Both were shown not to match the DNA , not sure if that is true either, could you please let us know if it is or not ?No, there is more to it than that. The research LL and I did and the comments made to Ray Nixon by Maloney were made over time and long before Debbie Perez came along. The comments by Alan Keel about the envelopes not being licked came to me in 2007 and to LL, as well independently of my efforts. No, the statements leading to the notion that the DNA they now have not being reliable to rule anyone out came long before Debbie Perez and came from multiple sources.

But I am tired of rehashing all of that in gory detail, so we'll just have to puzzle over what Insp. Hofsass said.

Mike[/quote]

Mike, I know that you did extensive work in getting the information you have had for many yrs now and thank you for all of that work. I am only reporting what she said to all of us and to LL who was there. She did say that the DNA they have was from the Stamps and envelopes so what you were told is very different than what she said to all of us. I spoke to LL about it and how happy I was to hear that we still have hope with that DNA and he agreed it was good news. There is so much confussion about many aspects of this case, including which letters are from the Zodiac to the fingerprints, the DNA and descriptions of a large stocky man to a much smaller person.
I didn't think I had heard anything about the DNA not being of any use untill after Deb Perez .I did hear that at least two suspects were tested with that DNA ,one being your suspect Mr. X ? Both were shown not to match the DNA , not sure if that is true either, could you please let us know if it is or not ? Technology is so much more advanced now than even a few yrs ago, that could make a huge difference in what they have now.

mike_r wrote:Wow! Very disheartening. This sounds like we are back in 2002. Isn't the "partial" Insp. Hofsass referred to the same one that research has proven comes from letters that were NOT licked by the sender? Do we have to go through all that explaining AGAIN? The department has to know this, right? They are the ones testing for saliva. Then in 2009 when Little Debbie came along, they admitted that the DNA they had "may not be reliable?" The more things change the more they stay the same.

Mike

I have come to this conclusion when it comes to DNA...when they catch him using it, it will prove to have been a good sample.

Sandy--thanks for letting us know how it went! Sure wish I could have gone.

Hi Sandy-

When Fagan gets back ask him what he thinks of the 2002 DNA. He is the one who followed up on it in 2009 for me and wrote about it. He knows. His opinion was that the lab resorted to combining samples and that "they mixed it up and they may have f$%ked it up" is the way he put it to me. By "mixing it up" he means that there is so little genetic material on any given stamp (presumably because they were not licked) that they finally gave up and combined samples from different envelopes just to get enough cells to do PCR and in doing so introduced a contaminant into the mixture.

I stand by all the research from LL and myself that says that the 2002 DNA cannot exclude anyone. Sure it comes from stamp and envelopes. That is not the question, LOL!

There are plenty of threads that discuss all of this, so no need to go into too much depth.

As far as SFPD lying about the reliability of the DNA in order to prevent people from the public wanting to be compared to the sample, I just don't see it. How many people are lining up to be compared to the Zodiac killer DNA? One. Debbie Perez. She was an aberration. All they had to do in her case was to say that the DNA they have comes from a male, since she was claiming that it was HER DNA on the letters. That would have put a stop to that. As far as other more likely requests, there would have to be a strong case presented to the PD to justify the expense of doing a familial DNA test on someone coming out of the woodwork and claiming to be related to the killer.


Mike

I still think the print from Stine's cab is very important. No way to say that got on there thru some lab mixup,or screwup. Identify who that print belongs to, and if you are not an officer,EMT,etc on the scene that night, you are likely the Zodiac. The print is in blood,so there's no way to say it belongs to a passenger from earlier that day,etc..

Hi Morf-

That is another long story. The old 1969 report prepared by SFPD for the FBI says that ALL (as in EVERY SINGLE ONE) prints recovered from the cab are LATENTS. This precludes a print that was made by someone getting blood on his hand and making a nice VISIBLE print that could have been photographed without being developed with powder. The prints from the driver's side were said to be "associated with blood." Latents that are "associated with blood" could mean that Z smeared blood on the cab while wiping it with the cloth, and coincidentally the smear of blood was right next to or on top of latent prints on the post between the front and rear doors. So when the cab was dusted, the blood was simply juxtaposed next to the latents that MAY OR MAY NOT be from the killer. The latents may have been pre-existing, since they are only "associated with blood" and not "in blood." That wording in that memo is very odd but seemingly is not meant to convey a "bloody print" in the conventional manner of thinking.

That whole topic is a war story unto itself and, like the DNA, millions of words have been spilled on it, as well. Pelissetti claims to have seen visible prints when he looked at the cab but SFPD has always been careful not to say the print is in blood (as far as I know). Rather it is associated with blood, which makes it very nebulous.

Mike

mike_r wrote:Hi Morf-

That is another long story. The old 1969 report prepared by SFPD for the FBI says that ALL (as in EVERY SINGLE ONE) prints recovered from the cab are LATENTS. This precludes a print that was made by someone getting blood on his hand and making a nice VISIBLE print that could have been photographed without being developed with powder. The prints from the driver's side were said to be "associated with blood." Latents that are "associated with blood" could mean that Z smeared blood on the cab while wiping it with the cloth, and coincidentally the smear of blood was right next to or on top of latent prints on the post between the front and rear doors. So when the cab was dusted, the blood was simply juxtaposed next to the latents that MAY OR MAY NOT be from the killer. The latents may have been pre-existing, since they are only "associated with blood" and not "in blood." That wording in that memo is very odd but seemingly is not meant to convey a "bloody print" in the conventional manner of thinking.

That whole topic is a war story unto itself and, like the DNA, millions of words have been spilled on it, as well. Pelissetti claims to have seen visible prints when he looked at the cab but SFPD has always been careful not to say the print is in blood (as far as I know). Rather it is associated with blood, which makes it very nebulous.

Mike

I thought the same thing Mike. Obviously one cannot dust for prints in blood, so what you mention above makes sense.

It's like everything else; prints from letters, blood, tire tracks...you get them, take note, etc., so if you catch the guy and you can match them up, you have your proof. BUT, to eliminate people with them? That is what concerns me.

Here is the link to the article that discusses the reliability of DNA from the letters.

http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/W ... 162785.php

I don't want people to come to the the wrong conclusion as to what I said . (I need to make it more clear.) The DNA is a" partial" and with technology advancing as fast as it is, I was told that it can be used in the near future , not today or tomorrow but near future. Because it is only a "partial" it can not be entered into CODIS .

sandy betts wrote:I don't want people to come to the the wrong conclusion as to what I said . (I need to make it more clear.) The DNA is a" partial" and with technology advancing as fast as it is, I was told that it can be used in the near future , not today or tomorrow but near future. Because it is only a "partial" it can not be entered into CODIS .

I agree with this too Sandy. Who knows what the future may hold!

Hi Sandy-

The question is not whether it is a partial or not. The 2002 DNA was a partial but partial or not, DNA from Z can rule suspects in or out. What is important is whether this is a new partial or not and where it comes from. When you talk about a "partial" that cannot be entered in CODIS, it sounds an awful lot like the same old same old 2002 DNA, which has been pretty much discredited by good old fashioned detective work by some of us amateurs as being capable of ruling anyone out.

If they got a new "partial," how do they know THAT partial comes from Z? Does any part of it match the 2002 DNA? There are once again more questions than answers.

Count me as a skeptic until more is learned.

Mike