• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
Don't know if this is true, but it seems an interesting lead:

DNA evidence that was used to disqualify a number of Zodiac Killer suspects appears to be in error.
Allen appeared to be ruled out as a suspect when DNA was collected from the envelope of one of the Zodiac letters in 2002, which was the subject of an ABC TV special. The DNA profile created from that genetic material was not a match for Allen or several other suspects.

The best, most complete resource for Zodiac Killer information around is ZodiacKiller.com. Its webmaster, Tom Voigt, has kept Zodiac sleuths up to date on every new development in the case for over 15 years. In a post to the site's message board, Mr. Voigt confirms that the material collected from the envelope in 2002 to create the Zodiac DNA profile wasn't collected in a manner that could guarantee it came from the killer.

"The partial DNA profile that was obtained back in 2002 by Dr. Cydne Holt for the ABC television show 'Primetime Thursday' was collected from the outside of the stamp," Mr. Voigt wrote. "No genetic material was obtained from behind the stamp, or the seal of the envelope, or anywhere else that would have most certainly belonged to the Zodiac." (emphasis his)
Voigt got the news from "a retired SFPD inspector," and he then confirmed the information with Dr. Holt. Apparently Dr. Holt was clear about which parts of the envelope the DNA was collected from, but that was lost in the editing process for the ABC special. The DNA profile built from that genetic material could have been from a postal employee or anyone else who handled the envelope in its journey, not necessarily the killer.

It would now appear that Arthur Leigh Allen and other suspects thought to be disqualified can once again be considered viable suspects. Allen in particular remains one of the most intriguing. Keep an eye on happenings at the Zodiac Killer site for more updates on this.
 

Dang! Had no idea this thread existed. I see it began a while back. Probably one of the most interesting and deeply suspicious stories in crime mystery. I'll have to dig through this thread but already have obtained some very interesting information by skimming over it.

Additional links for the obsessed.
http://zodiackillersite.com/viewtopic.php?t=938
http://www.zodiackiller.com/SuspectKaczynski.html

https://doubleagents13.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/5-ted-kaczynski-8/
http://earonsgsk.proboards.com/thread/497/zodiac-killer-ted-kaczynski-compared

http://unazod.com/essay.html
http://unazod.com/unazod.html
 

Of course the thing here which isn't mentioned is that Ted Kazczynski doesn't have to give a DNA sample and he refuses to give one. Combine that with following links and the knowledge that Kazcynski kept a code book with an unknown cipher only he knew.

FBI seeks DNA from Unabomber in '82 Tylenol poisoning case
http://missoulian.com/news/state-an...cle_7b022c06-8287-11e0-a06a-001cc4c002e0.html


A Proposed Solution to Zodiac's
32-Symbol Cipher

http://unazod.com/Wilks_32.htm

These links are at the end of above linked article.
http://unazod.com/phpBB/index.php
http://unazod.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=36&start=150
http://unazod.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=25
http://unazod.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=86
 
unazod ? that cipher solution is very uncompelling

Let's see if I can put this together logically without boring you to tears.

Whether or not the decoder had broken the encryption with a cipher is a weak spot. Any attorney worth a French Frank would be using an alternative cipher to impeach the supposed evidence if it were ever taken to a courtroom. However that's a problem as I shall shortly explain, but what I can see is how the decoding could be seen as unconvincing if the burden of proof in the eyes of the law are not fulfilled. So basically underneath it all I feel this is why you're sensing that the evidence is unconvincing. That's probably good judgement really.

Note however, that in looking at relationships in crimes to each other, the use of cryptography by certain high profile criminals stands out as somewhat remarkable and unique. I'm thinking of cryptography as a hallmark indicator to a specific sort of criminal: Really this is sort of what I'm gaining from the fact that two seemingly unrelated criminals used complex and possibly unknown forms of ciphers in self developed cryptography. Thus this attempt to make a comparative analysis linking two seemingly separate crimes by way of supposedly decoding an encipherment by creating a cipher and which does just that by breaking the encryption is actual circumstantial evidence supportive of the link. Unless of course you can disprove or otherwise convincingly impeach the cipher itself as the decoding mechanism.

The legal technical problem with rejecting the cipher that's been created is that you have to impeach the demonstrated workable cipher. Alternatively, to prove that the cipher is actual evidence you have to somehow show that in order to actually decode information correctly, no other known cipher systems can apply or if they do, then, the results of that decoding must produces gibberish unrelated to the cases at hand.

In other words, no alternative cipher may not produce a readable text with a coherent train of thought in order to meet the criteria for the burden of proof. Otherwise the burden of proof is broken. So, two things that any other alternative cipher must fulfill are readable and coherent to impeach the developed cipher.

In either case, whether trying to prove or disprove this developed cipher a lawyer or prosecutor would have to meet the criteria for proofs or impeachment as shown above.

This of course requires an expertise and I don't know of anyone who has ever tried to show that the cipher at the link could be in error, let alone why or what other cipher might also apply which doesn't produce gibberish.

As it stands the cipher fulfills the criteria for circumstantial evidence and is probably admissible in a court of law. If it were the defense would have it's hands full trying to impeach the cipher.

OK, so now having defined the legal realms there are other issues and problems.
Those I have to look at more deeply. For example I can pose the question if this is truly a cipher?
 
Last edited:
you seem to have a good grasp of such gibberish

Sorry Henry, I kept having thoughts to add on to the post. No, I know little about cryptography.
I have some formalized training (academic primarily) in time proven methodological techniques of investigation. Academically it's police science and or introductory principles of law. Almost the same things really.
 
Zodiac killer code cracked by Australian mathematician Samuel Blake more than 50 years after first murder

Key points:
  • At least five people were killed by the Zodiac killer in the 1960s, but the killer's identity is not known
  • The serial killer sent letters to San Francisco Bay Area newspapers including a code that came to be known as the 340 cipher
  • Dr Blake worked with US-based David Oranchak and Belgium-based Jarl van Eycke to crack it
A deciphered section of the code
I HOPE YOU ARE HAVING LOTS OF FUN IN TRYING TO CATCH ME

THAT WASNT ME ON THE TV SHOW

WHICH BRINGS UP A POINT ABOUT ME

I AM NOT AFRAID OF THE GAS CHAMBER

BECAUSE IT WILL SEND ME TO PARADICE ALL THE SOONER

BECAUSE I NOW HAVE ENOUGH SLAVES TO WORK FOR ME

WHERE EVERYONE ELSE HAS NOTHING WHEN THEY REACH PARADICE

SO THEY ARE AFRAID OF DEATH

I AM NOT AFRAID BECAUSE I KNOW THAT MY NEW LIFE IS

LIFE WILL BE AN EASY ONE IN PARADICE DEATH




https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12...-cracked-by-australian-mathematician/12977342
 
Zodiac killer code cracked by Australian mathematician Samuel Blake more than 50 years after first murder

Key points:
  • At least five people were killed by the Zodiac killer in the 1960s, but the killer's identity is not known
  • The serial killer sent letters to San Francisco Bay Area newspapers including a code that came to be known as the 340 cipher
  • Dr Blake worked with US-based David Oranchak and Belgium-based Jarl van Eycke to crack it
A deciphered section of the code
I HOPE YOU ARE HAVING LOTS OF FUN IN TRYING TO CATCH ME

THAT WASNT ME ON THE TV SHOW

WHICH BRINGS UP A POINT ABOUT ME

I AM NOT AFRAID OF THE GAS CHAMBER

BECAUSE IT WILL SEND ME TO PARADICE ALL THE SOONER

BECAUSE I NOW HAVE ENOUGH SLAVES TO WORK FOR ME

WHERE EVERYONE ELSE HAS NOTHING WHEN THEY REACH PARADICE

SO THEY ARE AFRAID OF DEATH

I AM NOT AFRAID BECAUSE I KNOW THAT MY NEW LIFE IS

LIFE WILL BE AN EASY ONE IN PARADICE DEATH




https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12...-cracked-by-australian-mathematician/12977342
He needs to get laid. That aside, that's some impressive deciphering.
 
Was this the technique used in that short lived TV show where a previously uncracked cipher was decoded?
 
If accurate, it's kind of interesting that only one word is misspelled - and what that word is.

(Punctuation I think you can possibly ignore – apart from maybe full stops, it’s quite often entirely done away with in basic codes.)

The language used is fairly simple - almost uniformly so. However, 'because' is a word that bad spellers often have a problem with, and I suspect that 'afraid' and 'having' are in that area, too. However, the writer does not seem to have a problem with any other word apart from 'paradise'.

Deliberate misdirection by intentional misspelling and poor grammar is always a possibility - but, if there was deliberate intent, it would be odd to choose just a single element, and at first I wondered if this was a case of a writer simply having a mental block in regard to one word, which is not uncommon, even for people with good language and grammar skills.

However, if this is a genuine communication from the actual killer and represents a genuine message from that individual (ie they actually believe what is written in the message), then it seems to me that the writer intends to convey an idea that they have considered and developed over some time, rather than on a whim. In such circumstances it is not unlikely that the individual in question will have fed their beliefs with some sort of external information - film, TV, literature. It's odd - certainly in terms of literature - that a word so central to the killer's narrative (in fact, the whole point of it) and so essential to the elucidation of his ethos, would be so poorly taken in as to be uniformly misspelled in future discussion.

I don't have a conclusion to this. I just find it odd - it doesn't sit right with me somehow.

(There’s also a possibility that rather than an original misspelling, this represents a glitch in the code.)

Edit: I also wonder if the apparently nonsensical penultimate line could be the result of a crypto-typo: 'that' = 'what'.
 
Last edited:
It does seem an odd misspelling. It might be worth looking at the suspects again and see if any of them did a similar misspelling.
 
If accurate, it's kind of interesting that only one word is misspelled - and what that word is.

(Punctuation I think you can possibly ignore – apart from maybe full stops, it’s quite often entirely done away with in basic codes.)

The language used is fairly simple - almost uniformly so. However, 'because' is a word that bad spellers often have a problem with, and I suspect that 'afraid' and 'having' are in that area, too. However, the writer does not seem to have a problem with any other word apart from 'paradise'.

Deliberate misdirection by intentional misspelling and poor grammar is always a possibility - but, if there was deliberate intent, it would be odd to choose just a single element, and at first I wondered if this was a case of a writer simply having a mental block in regard to one word, which is not uncommon, even for people with good language and grammar skills.

However, if this is a genuine communication from the actual killer and represents a genuine message from that individual (ie they actually believe what is written in the message), then it seems to me that the writer intends to convey an idea that they have considered and developed over some time, rather than on a whim. In such circumstances it is not unlikely that the individual in question will have fed their beliefs with some sort of external information - film, TV, literature. It's odd - certainly in terms of literature - that a word so central to the killer's narrative (in fact, the whole point of it) and so essential to the elucidation of his ethos, would be so poorly taken in as to be uniformly misspelled in future discussion.

I don't have a conclusion to this. I just find it odd - it doesn't sit right with me somehow.

(There’s also a possibility that rather than an original misspelling, this represents a glitch in the code.)

Edit: I also wonder if the apparently nonsensical penultimate line could be the result of a crypto-typo: 'that' = 'what'.

Zodiac wasn’t renowned for his spelling prowess. ln an early coded communication, for example, he wrote that killing people was “...more fun than killing wild game in the forrest because man is the most dangeroue anamal of all to kill.

maximus otter
 
Zodiac wasn’t renowned for his spelling prowess. ln an early coded communication, for example, he wrote that killing people was “...more fun than killing wild game in the forrest because man is the most dangeroue anamal of all to kill.

maximus otter

Ah, right. I'm no expert on the Zodiac.

I still find it notable that within the particular message in question there's only one particular word which seems to cause an issue, and that it is so central to the subject.

Granted though, if you increase the sample to include all communication, then this particular portion, and the example contained therein, may well lapse into statistical irrelevance.
 
Probably pretty tenuous but I had a look on google maps and there is a small town called Paradise in California which is about a 3 hour drive from the scenes of the killings in the Napa Valley, Lake Berryessa and Vallejo.
A quick search on Wikipedia came up with this
According to GNIS, the community has been known in the past by four different names or spellings: Leonards Mill, Poverty Ridge, Pair-O-Dice, and Paradice.[1]

A legend persists that the town was named because it was the home of the Pair o' Dice Saloon, an idea supported by a 1900 railroad map referring to the town as Paradice. However, no documentation has been found to prove the establishment existed, nor an explanation of the spelling of the town's name on the map.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise,_California

Maybe, and it's a pretty long shot, Zodiac was having a little joke about his location or had some connection with the place
 
@Frideswide
I can't recall the title but it was about 3 years ago. They had a team who visited the crime scenes and reanalysed the clues. The big breakthrough was in the last episode where they cracked one of the cyphers. Then the show ended abruptly.
 
It sounds rather good! Can you pin it down as far as bbc or commercial - or cable? :)
 
That could be it. It was fairly recently - we moved house in August 2018 and we saw it before then.
 
Pickwed this up today. When you get past the presenter wearing hospital scrubs, this is quite interesting:

 
I'm surprised there hasn't been more mention of the recent docuseries (based on the book) of the man who thinks his father might be the Zodiac.

I'll refrain from putting spoilers down in case you haven't seen it - it was very recent.
 
Back
Top