mike_r wrote:" One problem: the handwriting in the book isn’t even Earl Van Best’s, Voigt said. When Voigt first caught wind of Stewart’s book, he found the handwriting sample to be the most potentially convincing piece of evidence. Within days, though, a team of researchers on his forum, he claims, had completely debunked that piece of evidence, showing the handwriting they’d tested was from Van Best’s marriage certificate, which, it turns out, was written by the preacher who officiated the wedding.
“And he’s far too old to be the Zodiac,” Voigt says.
Voigt isn’t alone in his analysis. (Stewart could not be reached for comment.)
Mike Morford, the proprietor of zodiackillersite.com, says a team of researchers on his site detected the identical discrepancy. "
Thanks for giving me credit for my research on Van Best, Ratter. It was no "team" of researchers. Just one researcher.
Mike
Well Mike, it actually was a team effort, as the material you got and posted, I had already sent away for and not received yet. Additionally, we all discussed the book on this site and Tom's in the 1st place to make us send away for the questioned writing. But I guess deep down, we all want to see out name mentioned?

