DNA DECEPTION

[mike_r]

Hi-

In April 2009, I received an email from one of the more persistent posters hanging around the Zodiac case. His MO was to latch onto whatever the given Z suspect “flavor of the month” was and say that they were the Zodiac killer. He told me that the next day, a woman named Deborah Perez was coming forward and that her statement, which was to be backed by an attorney from the Melvin Belli law firm, was going to lead to the objective truth as to whom the Zodiac killer actually was.

We all know how that went. Perez’ statement was quickly set upon by knowledgeable posters. It tuned out that she had previously stated that she was JFK’s illegitimate daughter. Her attorney had worked for the Belli firm but the fine print said that he had inconveniently been disbarred. And on it went. A complete waste of everyone’s time.

Well, not quite.

Perez also had a bizarre story about having accompanied her stepfather on some of his murderous forays to the Bay Area. She claimed that she had composed some of the Zodiac letters. She then asked that her DNA be compared to the 2002 sample of “Zodiac DNA” that ABC had introduced on their show and which was used to rule out three suspects on the air.

This is where Debbie Perez unwittingly made her contribution to the Zodiac case.

In an article in the Chronicle after she made her challenge to SFPD, an unnamed spokesman for the Department was quoted in an article by Kevin Fagan. He or she stated that the “Zodiac DNA” “…many not be reliable.” This was the first official pronouncement anyone from the Department had ever made since the 2002 show casting any doubt whatsoever on the validity of their sample, even though amateurs (including myself, Lyndon Lafferty and Ray Nixon, among others, had independently ferreted out bits and pieces of information along the way that case this DNA in a less than flattering light.

I asked Fagan to follow up with his source to learn more. He emailed me and said that the 2002 sample was a “combined sample.” In other words, it may not have come from one envelope. And this made perfect sense given what amateurs had learned since 2002. There was a cryptic statement by Mike Maloney to Lafferty in 2002 that the sample was “preliminary” and that it was "not valid.” And there was my 2007 interview with Alan Keel, the former head of SFPD’s lab (until 1999). He stated that in comparison to the 1978 letter and one 1974 letter, the “true” Zodiac letters were severely deficient in both amylase/saliva and oral epithelial cells. In a conversation I had with Ray, he confided to me that in 2002, Cydne Holt had conducted her own analysis of the letters and had reached the same conclusion Keel had reached.

And so it follows that if there were too few cells on any given stamp or envelope, the only way to get enough cells to perform PCR is to combine samples from multiple sources. And lo and behold, in 2009 we learn that this is exactly what Holt apparently did in 2002! It was in combining samples that SFPD felt it may have introduced a contaminant DNA. (As a side note, the really frustrating thing I learned from Keel is that the lab itself divided the letters into two groups—the “forged” Zodiac letters, which are characterized by being like a “normal” letter you might analyze for DNA after being sent by someone with no compunction about licking his envelopes—loaded with both saliva and calls—and DNA that apparently matched across the two. The “true” Zodiac letters were the ones that had essentially no saliva (“trace” amounts) and many, many fewer cells that one would normally see on a letter that had been licked. Keel admitted that it would not be unfair to say that the “true” letters had been sealed with tap water.)

So at least two rounds of testing of the Zodiac letters by the lab for saliva and cells had yielded the same results: not licked. SFPD itself segregates the letters into two piles. They knew about these problems in 2002. There is nothing they could have said in 2009 that was not known in 2002. And yet…there was no mention on the 2002 ABC show of any potential issues with the DNA they were using before a national audience to “rule out” suspects and destroy the credibility of the people who had accused these suspects—one of them being me.

I am therefore officially accusing either SFPD or ABC of intentionally withholding crucial information about the validity of the 2002 so-called “Zodiac DNA.” The limitations of the Zodiac letters with respect to a near or complete absence of saliva and cells should have been provided to viewers in the interest of balanced and fair reporting. It was not. The 2002 show, which everyone assumed was definitive with respect to ruling out three suspects, was a sham. It was a dog and pony show and it is high time for some other network or reporter to investigate deeper into this story to see who was withholding what and why.

The most logical motive for SFPD would be something that was hinted at towards the end of the show. A starry-eyed Kelly Carroll basically stated that he hoped Z, who he assumed was watching, would be a little bit nervous now because law enforcement was getting a little closer to him. But wait a minute. The lab had concluded that the stamps and envelopes had not been licked. If the killer knew that (and had actually volunteered a sample to be compared knowing that he had not licked the stamps and envelopes), then how was that supposed to scare him?

ABC, on the other hand, may not have wished to undermine the impact or ratings of its show by having to run a disclaimer with its ads leading up to it stating that the DNA came from envelopes and stamps the killer had never even licked. Therefore, it would have had to say in fairness that the “eliminations” the viewers would be seeing that night need to be taken with a huge grain of salt and were for entertainment purposes only, etc. That is a lot of work. It may have been easier for them to just run the show as they did and sweep the inconvenient truths about the DNA under the rug.

But let me repeat: SFPD knew in 2002 the information they finally admitted in 2009. It had to. Why was that information never shared with the public or at least privately with the researchers whose suspect were eliminated on that show? Where was the fairness and balanced in the show? It is a testimony to the strength of my circumstantial case that despite this DNA, which many people feel is insurmountable, I was able to get one of the top behavioral profilers in the world in Richard Walter to support my conclusions as far back as 2004, six years before he stated his opinion in print.

My money is on SFPD.

Mike

[up2something]

Excellent info , Mike. Thank you.

[mike_r]

Hi-

The net result of this underhanded dealing by either SFPD or ABC is that it created an aura, a mystique that there was this "Zodiac DNA" that could magically eliminate suspects that did not match it. It perverted people's minds. Anyone who would volunteer a sample to be compared to it had to be innocent, right? This game of dirty pool by someone to promote some agenda they had in 2002 has hurt me and hurt the case. The uninformed probably still think that this DNA is just as viable as any other DNA for ruling suspects out.

It is not.

Mike

[onewhoknows]

So according to what you are saying, SFPD just randomly decided the DNA recovered from the licked envelopes are not from the Zodiac Killer.
I'm wondering, how do they know? Please specify the letters that were licked, I know there is a chart somewhere. So SFPD does not compare
suspects to this lavish DNA? Did they run this DNA through CODIS just for the heck of it? Zodiac could not have been aware of the advancements
in DNA when these letters were written. Can you tell me is there a time difference, ie. the earlier letters were not licked, but the later ones were?

[Paul_Averly]

The chart states "Cells found."

Great thing about DNA is that you only need one cell to get a strand of DNA.
The letter that were tested and listed as "cells found" were compared, matched, and a partial profile was crated.

I'm sorry but just because the SF DNA profile doesn't match your suspect's is not a good reason to dispute it.

[Seagull]

Bear in mind that while the chart does say that cells were found on certain letters, it does not say whether or not any DNA that MIGHT have been developed from the cells is definitely Zodiac's DNA, nor does it say if the cells found even matched each other.

The chart.

http://www.zodiackiller.com/SFPDDNA.html

[mike_r]

Hi-

Maybe you should do your own research. Why make me and a few other people do all of it? Try going to the Chronicle website and finding the article where someone from SFPD said their DNA may not be reliable. Did you know the Chronicle has an archive? I didn't say the DNA "may not be reliable." SFPD did. Do you get it? The people who did the analysis and who know how it was done are concerned about the DNA. I didn't pull that out of thin air. Maloney was waffling on the validity of the sample as far back as November 2002.

Yeah, the great thing about DNA is you only need one cell to get a profile. But whose cell was it? When you "find cells" on an envelope that was not licked, do you know where those calls can come from? Can they tell a "Zodiac cell" from another cell? Do you know how a piece of stamp is analyzed for amylase and cells, which are the markers for the presence of saliva? How are they extracted from the stamp? I'm guessing not. How were these letters protected from outside contamination from 1969 to 2002? Could some handwriting analyst in 1970 have sneezed on the outside of the Stine envelope or licked his finger before he touched it? Do you know how science works? Did you know that most scientists who practice science publish their results for others to see? SFPD's lab conveniently does not have to do this. There is "peer review" before you publish and other scientists review your techniques ("Materials and Methods") before your results can be published. You'd never in a million years be able to make definitive statements about a scientific sample if you could not reproduce it. Replication of results. They can't do this with the "Zodiac DNA." It was a one shot deal with iffy lab technique (from what Fagan learned). The "peer review" has been left to me and others interested in the case with a background in science like Ray, to do. (I published a scientific paper in the 1980s out of my Master's thesis that was subject to peer review.)

This is the type of ignorance I've been dealing with for years.

Maybe you missed the part about the lab having to combine samples just to get enough cells to even run the PCR. That is a red flag. Like the 1978 letter and one from 1974 (as related to me by Alan Keel) each Z letter should have yielded its own DNA profile. Apparently, they don't. That is why you combine samples.

I have sources. Or had sources. SFPD apparently spent last year looking for DNA on some pieces of Z evidence. I was told about this work in about April. I think it was the shirt. They were very closed mouthed about it. All they told me is that whatever they were analyzing was something Z had definitely touched at some point and that it was not anything written. Have you seen the videos of how the shirt was handled? I think it was Toschi who pulled it out of some paper bag on one show. The bag looked like it had been opened and closed a billion times. It was very frayed looking. He pulled it out with his bare hands and then unceremoniously stuffed it back into the bag. Multiply this type of handling without gloves by the number of times that bag was opened and closed and you can imagine what a joke it was to analyze the shirt for touch DNA, which is an EXTREMELY sensitive technique that can pick up even the smallest of contaminants. It was a waste of time. The shirt had been handled too much for that type of analysis.

My source there has retired so I don't know what happened but...you never heard any news report about new DNA in the case last year, did you?

As an aside, I had developed an email friendship with Insp. Vince Repetto in 2010. He retired last summer. We spoke via email and by phone many times from 2012-2012. He actually met me in early 2012 and spent three hours having lunch and then drinks with me. Now, do you think SFPD would have spent three hours talking to me about my POI in 2012 if they thought he had been ruled out by DNA? You do the math.

Mike

[Tahoe27]

Here is how I look at it...

Don't rule people out with it, but maybe if someone is caught someday, it might be used to rule them in.

[mike_r]

Hi Tahoe-

So what would you say about someone who was not ruled in by the DNA? Was he ruled out? No. But if he was not ruled in because the DNA may not be from the letter writer, can he still be the letter writer if he never matches that DNA? Either the DNA can nab the guy or not. If the lab is concerned that it may be a contaminant, then I hope you agree that the DNA may not be from the letter writer at all and that someone can still be the letter writer even if he does not match that DNA. That DNA does not have to play any role at all in catching the killer, either ruling him in or out.

Right?

Mike

[AK Wilks]

I don't agree with all his conclusions but I can partially backup what Mike is saying fact wise. After a long period of presenting and discussing evidence I finally was able to convince an investigator on the original night stalker case to compare the DNA in that case with the DNA that the SFPD was claiming it had in the Zodiac case. This investigator asked the SFPD for the information to do the comparison and he was denied and told that they " did not have confidence" in the partial DNA profile that they had.

All they had was 4 markers and you need a minimum of 9 for CODIS. At one time they touted this as a likely Zodiac profile but told this investigator that a "lab person misspoke" in doing so. Which may be pure CYA.

It was Inv. Larry Montgomery of the OCDA who asked SFPD for the DNA.