Zodiackillersite.com

To me, the 2nd letter does not look like an I, but possibly an A. Then after that, it's just too poor quality. Anybody else see it? Looks like a leaning letter or slanted letter, not an I which stands straight up

I'm satisfied it's an I. It's the angle that the letter surface has been photographed at that's causing the slant. The word is VICT--. IM, OM or ON is the query or quandary.

I don't know if this will help. An image of the letter with the Enterprise envelope appeared in the March 1971 issue of Argosy. Morf posted that here-

http://zodiackillersite.com/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=97

At this point, I'm not sure how much of the spelling I trust!

In that tidbit from Officer Randoll (that morf posted), it states that both copies were 4th or 5th copies and "difficult" to read. So it would seem all those we have been privy to are transcribed copies from someone other than the original typist.

It could also be that the original two copies were exact matches--which would makes sense.

Tahoe27 wrote:It could also be that the original two copies were exact matches--which would makes sense.

Unless I am misunderstanding you, the two copies of the letter that we can see, are clearly NOT exact copies.

I think what T is suggesting is this: The author produced two copies from the same original, using multiple carbons to make it hard to trace the machine he used. He sent one to the Enterprise and one to the RPD. Both copies were poor, the print faint, hard to read, etc.

What we keep seeing are reproductions or rather reconstructions of these “original” copies, made by the cops and by someone at the Enterprise.

The discrepancies between the two versions may be the result of different people interpreting/reconstructing the copy in question, rather than an actual discrepancy in the words used, etc.

It's an interesting – and at first glance plausible – theory. The question is whether it actually flies – the different lengths of the signature lines, for instance, is that compatible with this theory? It could be – depends, I suppose, on how poor these copies actually were.

Anyway, if these are indeed two different versions – how do we explain it? Why send two different (but not radically different by any means) versions?

Norse wrote:Anyway, if these are indeed two different versions – how do we explain it? Why send two different (but not radically different by any means) versions?

Ah yes. Back to my original question lol.

Yes, what Norse wrote...a much better way with words than I.

Obviously these clear transcriptions are not the originals. I think when we see different spacing, etc., it is because they were transcribed by someone else in an easy to read format. I'm not suggesting words such as "twich' were spelled wrong by the transcriber--just that some differences could be easily justified.

It would make (more) sense to me if they received the same letter via the carbon copies. The report seems to suggest that.

up2something wrote:
Ah yes. Back to my original question lol.

Hehe, yes - sorry about that: But speaking about originals...well, If this had been handwritten letters, you could explain the differences easily enough: He had the thing down in essence but wrote it partly from memory the second time around (sort of like Z with the three-part letter).

But this is a guy with a typewriter – and not only a typewriter, but definitely a batch of carbon paper to go with it. There's no sense in not simply copying the original message, is there?

If there are two different versions, then the guy sat down, wrote one version – and blurred it down through multiple carbons. Then he sat down and wrote it again, from memory or whatever, and repeated the carbon process. I don't think that makes sense, personally.

I submitted an FOIA request today for copies of both confession letters & both envelopes. Fingers crossed, guess we will know in a month or so