Norse wrote:Joe:
I guess we can define evidence in different ways. One way of looking at it would be to determine which circumstances might be deemed relevant in a hypothetical trial: He can be placed a stone's throw from the Stine scene minutes after the murder. This looks very relevant. The fact that certain Z dates correspond to dates that were significant to KQ, or that he owned a building with a symbol on it which resembles a certain other symbol, or that he was in the habit of signing cars with a felt pen...and so forth, would probably be less relevant. If one presupposes that KQ is Z, then all this carries weight. If one doesn't, it looks tenuous.
Anyway, none of it matters without the proverbial smoking gun - that much is clear.
As for DNA, well...it's a con, there's no doubt about that. There's reason to believe that KQ knew about saliva testing back in the late 60s/early 70s. And there's reason to believe that Z knew about this too - or at least that he for some reason or other refrained from licking his stamps/envelopes. One story I've read goes like this: NONE of the Z letters showed any traces of saliva. And this was used as a means to identify fakes. The infamous '78 letter had plenty of saliva on it - as had one other, earlier letter which is generally accepted as genuine (my guess would be this is the Exorcist letter, but that's speculation on my part).* If KQ was Z and he KNEW that he had never licked any stamps or envelopes, used gloves and so forth - would he be confident enough to submit a DNA sample? Seems a bit risky all things considered. A tiny hair would be enough.
Another possibility - and this as a matter of PURE speculation - is that KQ somehow knew that the DNA held by LE was no good. Others have entertained the same idea over the years. Still, the simplest explanation is that KQ was confident for the obvious reason that he wasn't Z.
Lastly, KQ's ranch: This was a stud farm in the Napa valley. Should be possible to pinpoint its location but it can't have been too far from LB. Question is whether it would have been a natural place to swing by en route from the attack site to the car wash.
* I don't know this to be true - it's never been confirmed as such, as far as I know. I believe Mike Rodelli talked to a crime lab technician at one point - and that this man provided him (MR) with the information. The lab guy didn't remember which of the "confirmed" letters had saliva on it, but stated that it was just ONE plus the '78 letter.
Thanks, I didn't know that about the 78 letter. Still, I hope that saliva was matched against suspects all the same. And yes, I agree that some of these tidbits, that he autographed his cars with a felt pen, for example, on their own do not stand up. I would have dropped KQ long ago if it were for a few of the more tenuous facts. To be honest, I had dropped KQ years ago as a suspect, but a couple of things got me wondering about him recently. Reading that letter KQ sent to The Chronicle was a big one, that and learning how unreliable the DNA on Z is.
It might be a shock to some of you who read my posts, but I'm an editor. The one thing I think I have become good at over the years is discerning who wrote what, not only based on style and diction, but what a particular writer's preoccupations are, and I see a lot of similarities between the letter KQ wrote The Chronicle and Z's.
Anyway, all I was trying to say was that while much of the evidence against KQ is tenuous on it's own, there are too many coincidences.