Zodiackillersite.com

There's alot of good analysis here with regard to handwriting comparisons.....an observation made several years ago with regard to the backs of the Chronicle and Examiner envelopes, re the printing of "Please rush to editor"...While one is not a carbon copy of the other, they are identical. The best explanation I've seen to explain this, is the possible use of a Polygraph (duplicating device). I wonder if anyone agrees or has an alternative explanation.
If the suggestion is the most logical, what do you think it means (if anything) with regard to the overall analysis of Z's handwriting?

Wier wrote:There's alot of good analysis here with regard to handwriting comparisons.....an observation made several years ago with regard to the backs of the Chronicle and Examiner envelopes, re the printing of "Please rush to editor"...While one is not a carbon copy of the other, they are identical. The best explanation I've seen to explain this, is the possible use of a Polygraph (duplicating device). I wonder if anyone agrees or has an alternative explanation.
If the suggestion is the most logical, what do you think it means (if anything) with regard to the overall analysis of Z's handwriting?

I'm not so sure on the use of a duplicating device but there certainly seems to be duplicating or at least re-producing even if it is done by hand. I assume this is what you are referring to.



I have to say that after overlaying them on the bottom image, they are identical, an actual 'carbon copy'. There is some variation on scale and some minor distortion in regards this but these are the same. There are a few more marks on one than the other and a period and comma but the actual letterforms are identical.

That is rather curious and thanks for bringing it up.

Slightly perplexing in that my only logical thought on it is that we are looking at two different re-productions of the same envelope back. Maybe I've got 2 versions of the same thing and I'm comparing one with the other by mistake? If these are the correct images and purportedly from 2 different envelopes that's very odd.

I've included the times envelope as well because, despite not being the same letterforms the overall shape used is the same. We see this non-identical copying in the Bates letters as well.

Thanks for the input Trav. I'm still not 100% sure, however, in concentrating on the differences...variation in scale, the distortion and the extra marks on one, they do appear to be (as labelled) different envelopes. I also note the "missing" piece of the P (in PLEASE) on one. I still favour the polygraph overall
as it's "one" answer that may account for all differences, including pressure. That said, I'm not married to it and am willing to be persuaded otherwise.
Of course the big question is, Why he did it...if genuine.

The polygraph idea is interesting. Certainly seems more sophisticated than one might fits think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph_ ... ing_device)


To be honest though I think this is crossed wires. I would need to find more solid confirmation of the authenticity on these envelope backs. I unfortunately don't know off the top of my head where I came by the images I've used here. In my envelope presentation I have them paired up as they appear here so I can only speculate that I got that information from somewhere to do that. My feeling on it is I've just grabbed it from somewhere where it was paired up with and presented as the backs to those envelopes.

One is clearly a copy with the label on it and bits missing. If you look at the area with the parts missing it looks like the label was printed on a piece or paper and then cut out and laid over the envelope (not very carefully) and then copied. The edge outlined by the missing parts seems too clean to be copier degradation.

The other appears to be a direct scan or a scan from a photograph and possibly odd for being the back of an envelope there appears to be a distinct lack of seams, joins, or flaps. My gut tells me that these are two versions of the same thing but I have no idea where the 'photographed' one surfaced from and I don't have much faith in it's provenance until I know better.

I couldn't argue with that, we would need to be sure that there wasn't some error/mix up when these were published. That said, I did mention this to a case detective sometime back and his reply was " they would be aware of that". Still not sure what that amounts to to be honest, he didn't elaborate. In the context of the conversation it meant one of two things...there was some form of copying at play that he was already aware of it or he was assuming if there was ,"they" would be aware of it!

Had a look at the 'photographed' or 'scanned' envelope. There does appear to be flaps on it, just very hard to see unless you enhance them.

This is a really interesting and new find. I am interested to see what comes of this. Some have spoken of using a light table re: the ciphers and the idea
of Z using a 'polygraph' drawing machine with the letters, etc. fits with that idea.

-glurk

Tom posted high-res copies at zk.com: http://zodiackiller.com/letters_index.html

This one shows a postmark goof at the bottom right: http://zodiackiller.com/SFCEBHR.html

An observation that may help us decipher what's going on here.......Look and compare both the Chronicle and Examiner letters. Clearly the Chronicle letter appears to be written either with a thicker nibbed pen or extra pressure, the writing is much thicker in the Chronicle than the Examiner.
However, when we compare the backs of those same envelopes (as labelled) and the "Please Rush to Editor" print, the situation appears to be reversed.
It's almost as if the Chronicle labelled back belongs to the Examiner and vice versa.
The heavier print (examiner labelled) is also the one with the extra marks (dot and comma after "editor) that does not show up on the other. However just to preplex us more, the heavier print is also the one with missing letter sections such as the P. (more on that later)

However, regardless of those observations we are still left with two different writing thicknesses. Now place one over the other and align the P In "Please".
You will notice that while appearing identical the whole thing does not line up. When we move along putting each letter over it's corresponding partner, they appear identical and for all intents and purposes are, with the exception of thickness.
Experiment and change Chronicle on top of Examiner and vice versa. From what I can see, they are actually two different letters/sets of printing and not some error by way of mix up. I still believe all is best explained by the use of a polygraph...two different pens and or two different pressures.
Thoughts?

For sure two different pens. The ink ran out of his felt-tip so he switched it up.