Comparison of Zodiac Letter Intro's

[aquiman Profile]

Let me say up front that I am NOT a handwriting expert. My amateur analysis that follows is simply a comparison of all correspondence (genuine and disputed) that began with "This is the Zodiac speaking." It is a comparison of ONLY that introductory sentence from 15 different letters to which I had access. Though I've offered an opinion or two, I've come to no definitive conclusions myself. A comprehensive analysis would of course require that all letters be examined in their entirety, but this is just a quick and dirty effort to get some of us amateurs involved (even though the so-called "experts" have come to their own conclusions). Any and all comments and criticisms are welcome.

-A

Edit: Comment in #12 was supposed to read "probably fake" rather than "possible real". The experts deemed it fake long ago; just leaving room for possibility.

[FoolsGold Profile]

Thanks for that. Interesting. For sure, The State letter is a fraud, and I did a cursory examination without reading your notes in the right column.

Regarding the The State letter, the first s letter is almost like a z, the letter i is not dotted, the letter a in zodiac has a long trailing tail, the intial T has a reverse slant, the z in Zodiac has a smaller top line, the k has a smooth curve rather than two rigidly attached separate lines, et cetera.

Definitely, IMO, a fraud.

On the other hand, no pun intended, the other examples form essentially two categories: the frenetic (A:1, 2, 3, 4, 7) and the calm (B:6, 8). Because group A is linked to group B by physical evidence, the only fraud here, as you stated, is The State letter. Consequently, from this examination, I think it's clear that the Zodiac was at least mildly bi-polar, if not full blown dissociative..

So is agree with you emphatically.

[aquiman Profile]

The content of the 4/24/78 letter was published in the 4/26/78 issue of the SF Chronicle. Zsearcher provided the link for me here:

http://www.sfgate.com/gate/graphics/2008/12/10/zodiac_april_26_1978_a.pdf

The letter was deemed a fake (and it likely is, IMO). Does anyone know if a photocopy of the actual letter was printed as well? Or was it available to the public at any time before 10/1987? I ask because of similarities between the print style of the 4/78 letter and the 10/87 letter. If a photocopy of the actual 4/78 letter were available, I can understand that someone may have tried to mimic the "font" used, whether he/she knew it was genuine or not. Much of the content is obviously the same, but that was known to the general public. However, if a photocopy was not accessible, is it not reasonble to assert that the same hoaxer may be responsible for the 1987 letter as well, based purely on similar handwriting? Outside of an inconsistent slant to the 1974 letter, there are many similarities between handwriting in the two letters which I'm not able to dismiss outright. Any opinions? Thanks.

-A

[FoolsGold Profile]

Gee, a 1978 letter many believed forged by Graysmith, and a similar letter popping up in 1987. So, when was the yellow book first published? 1986 you say? Well, hell, what a coincidence. Not that I'm accusing anyone of a crime without actual evidence. . .

Does anyone know if a photocopy of the actual letter was printed as well? Or was it available to the public at any time before 10/1987?

If so, Graysmith would've included it in his yellow book, and I don't recall ever seeing an actual image of the letter, other than what's been posted.