The Car Door

[Norse]

That's the one, Smithy - yes.

"...reconized by writter..." First one could be writen...I mean written off as a typo (didn't hit the key type of...typo). Second one, though. That's worse. Double consonants = an issue for a certain other writter, no question about it. But on the whole, and in all seriousness, I don't get a Z feeling from Hoffman's spelling. It's not the same thing. Whether it's because Z is faking it - or whether he has a different sort of spelling problem, I don't know. But I don't think the two writters writs badly in the same fashion - at all.

[Tahoe27]

He doesn't drop his "e's". Quite common I'm sure. Too bad some of these guys didn't get the typists to write them up like with other reports.

[joedetective]

I know that's what a lot of people on here claim. They've studied the case for years, but until I pointed out just a couple of days ago that the FBI report of October 23 clearly states that no print from any crime scene or letter matches any other, they didn't know that. Until I pointed out that the Times-Herald had printed the entire first letter, including the symbol, on the front page August 4, they didn't know that, either.

Maybe you should say "some" didn't know that.

Most of us are well aware prints from the different crime scene and letters have never matched. If they did, we all wouldn't be having a lot of these conversations!

And of course many of us were aware of the letter to the Vallejo Times Herald with a copy of the actual letter in it. It was simply forgotten--I thank you for reminding us. Zamantha had shared that later publicly a long time ago (at the old site) and of course it may have been mentioned and/or shown elsewhere too.

So thanks for your input, but...

I would go so far as to say "most" of us knew this, especially those who've been following this case for years and even decades. If this Bill is so informed and well-researched he'd know that both topics have been brought up before. There is so much information to this case, and so much deciphering as to what's indeed factual (thanks Graysmith) that some of the stuff gets buried. Bill appears to be yet another poster who is more interested in being an antagonistic know-it-all, than in researching and analysis. I've seen his kind before on here.

[Norse]

Just a little thing - before I forget it - regarding the connection between LB and the rest of the series.

This is by no means conclusive, it's tenuous enough even - but still: the LB killer had low cut army type boots or work boots. This we can gather both from BH's description and the infamous Wingwalker prints.

The man observed by Don Fouke had "possibly low cut" shoes. This just struck me: you don't describe any kind of shoes as "low cut", do you? Some shoe types ARE low cut and don't come in any other form. You wouldn't say that someone was wearing "low cut brogues" or "low cut oxfords", because there are no hi-top version of these shoes. And you certainly don't say that someone "possibly" was wearing low cut shoes of any old kind. The "possible" to me indicates that he might have been wearing hi-tops of some kind, with the upper part concealed by his pants.* So, to my thinking, Fouke's observation MAY indicate that the man he encountered was wearing the same sort of shoes worn by the LB killer: low cut military style boots or work boots of some kind.

* To be clear: it indicates that the kind of shoes he had on come in both high and low cuts, like army boots do.

Might mean nothing - but it is at least a possible connection.

On a side note, looking at the LB sketch (not Graysmith's drawing, the one done by someone in LE with notes on it, based on BH's description): the attacker had "bloused" trousers. This is a very noticeable feature, I think. It goes well with heavy footwear, often used by outdoorsy types (and people in uniform, of course). But this feature is not mentioned by any of the three girls who may or may not have witnessed Z hours before the attack. Might not mean anything either - but it's worth pointing out.

The three girls describe - as I see it - a fairly neat sort of person. He's even described as good looking. The attacker, on the other hand, looked downright shabby according to BH. Not mutually exclusive, I know. The first guy could have been good looking, yet - sort of - shabbily dressed. Or Z could have changed his clothes - or the way he wore these clothes. The possibilities are many. But it's a fact that none of the girls mention bloused trousers.

The latter as a side note - nothing to do with door writing, I know.

[Norse]

Once again I've been reading old threads on Tom Voigt's archived board - and once again I found something very interesting.

I don't have the necessary files at the ready, so I haven't been able to confirm this - but it would appear that Z's symbol was not printed in any paper until after Stine. It was described in various ways (crosshairs, cross within a circle, etc.) but it was not printed as an illustration, i.e. the parts of the letters which were printed in the form of photos did not include his full signature with the symbol. The latter would actually indicate that this was something the police held back, which is interesting in itself.

But. If this is indeed the case - if the symbol was not printed, only described in words - this would seem to have some bearing on the LB conundrum. If you are a copycat who have read about Z in the papers and only READ about his signature mark, not actually seen it - how likely is it that you manage to reproduce it flawlessly? A reticule or crosshairs - or a crossed circle, or a circle with a cross in it - is not normally depicted as a cross which extends beyond the circle, which Zodiac's does.

Again IF it is indeed the case that the symbol was not printed in the form of an illustration prior to LB, then one might claim that there was indeed an element to the crime which would not have been known by a possible copycat - namely the symbol which appears on the car door in exactly the form Z uses for his other known signatures.

This is NOT my idea - all credit to the members of the old TV board. And if it has all been cleared up and debunked already (i.e. if it has been shown that the symbol WAS printed prior to LB), then I apologize.

[Tahoe27]

I think they just didn't realize at the time the symbol, and entire letter was printed in the Vallejo paper - August 4, 1969. Here is the last part of the article showing it:



The entire link is here: (see Aug. 4, 1969)

viewtopic.php?f=94&t=165&start=10

[Norse]

Tahoe: Thanks!

Is that what was actually printed in the VTH on Aug 4th? If so, this entire idea goes straight out the window.

Was the same photograph of the letter (including the symbol) printed in the SF papers?

If it was printed in its entirety, symbol and all, those guys in the original TV board thread must have been less than well informed. Not saying they weren't. But the issue seemed real enough back then. I'm just surprised that they would have overlooked something as obvious as this.

[Tahoe27]

Sure Norse!

I do not believe it was published in any S.F. newspaper.

It would have been an easy item to overlook I suppose. I just shared that one portion of the article--there was more to it. Zam copied the whole thing which one can read in the link above.

[Norse]

Thanks again, T.

Well, it was a nice theory - but them's the breaks.

[smithy]

Yeah, the symbol was printed in the paper - it says so earlier in the thread.

... in one of the textbooks about handwriting disguise (was it Springer or Koppenhaver or W. Harrison? I don't know - it was one of them) they talk about zoned letters and slant and size and stuff, but also about using circular periods....

Found it. Was I the only one looking? Perhaps I was! Damn! Well, we all need a hobby.
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwester ... ntext=jclc
There. John J. Harris. It's worth reading - even this little excerpt's good.
This is the handbook that smart policemen and fledgeling forensic technicians would have been perusing in the 50's and 60's.
There's a better one which was released in 1970, which has even more recognisable "techniques" in it.
Oh! Of course smart criminals would have read it too. If you happen to believe that The Evile Zodiace was a smart criminal, that is.
(Did the guy spend all the time between vicious crimes in the library, studying bomb-making, ciphers and What-News-Editors-Want? Hmm.)

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that if someone wanted expert advice on how to disguise their handwriting they'd use some of the techniques the book mentions. Indeed, "Lo and behold!" - it certainly seems our letter-writer uses damn-near ALL of them at one time or another, it's been suggested. Even "upside-down" writing. No, it's not a coincidence.

The car door, then!
The car door contains one immediately recognisable techinique "for handwriting disguise" which was known and talked about in educated document-examination circles of the time, then. That there colon. And (bonus!) it was also used - occasionally - in other (unpublished) letters.
I would tend to believe that Sherwood Morill would have recognised that. At least I would like to.

It's almost like another of the writer's little taunts isn't it - using techniques he knew the police would recognise? What a rotter.
Am I repeating myself? Apologies if I am.