| Author | Message | ||
     Mike_R |
Hi Ed- Thanks for your help on these issues. Your advice has been enlightening and emphasizes the limitations that civilian researchers face when trying to tackle old, unsolved cases. Mike | ||
| Webservant |
Mike R, The validity of your posted letter is confirmed by similar images posted on the Internet, including ABC News where a similar copy remains posted on this page (with the ABC logo in the background). The problem with the image is that you are seeking expert opinions about an image unsuitable for such examination. Forensic scientists work from "best evidence" and not just the best image a citizen or private investigator possesses in lieu of forensic-quality images that exist in a case. If there were a problem with the latent print evidence in the Zodiac case, I have confidence that the Latent Print Examiners involved would detect the anamolies and let investigators know about the problem. This forum is not the mechanism law enforcement agencies use to request outside assistance or consultation about forensic evidence. Agencies normally provide original evidence, or best-quality forensic photographs, to the FBI Lab, state crime lab, SWGFAST, or some committee or forum of the IAI, the Fingerprint Society, etc. On occasion, we post problem identification images on this website. This Zodiac thread does not involve experts expressing concerns over problem evidence, but is similar to threads posted over the years about President Kennedy's assassination with requests by private citizens for Latent Print Examiners to help them search for the “real truth.” To that end, I recommend the following: For the cost of a car tune-up, you can hire a private consultant to give you an unbiased opinion of the best evidence you can show him. Thus you will get the truth based on what you have and (provided your private consultant finds something of interest) help the police solve this case.Best wishes, Webservant | ||
| Mike_R |
Hi Ed- You said, "Whether that is or is not a genuine or fabricated writer’s palm in the image, nobody is indicating that the absence of your suspect's prints means he had no involvement. If that is your goal (keeping him a possible suspect), you need not look any further and you have met your purpose insofar as this Forum. and "In latent print examination, we cannot prove that a certain person did or did not touch a surface based on the absence of their finger or palm prints. DNA cannot prove that a person was or was NOT at a crime scene based on the absence of their DNA. Questioned Document Examination cannot prove that a person did or did not hold a gun to another's head and force them to write something based on the absence of the gun-holder's identifiable handwriting/handprinting." Sure, this is true. But for me to argue that the fact that some OTHER person'a palm prints are apparently on the Exorcist letter "does not necessarily rule out my suspect" is not an argument that I can win, unless I have some SUBSTANTIVE information that throws doubt onto these prints. You obviously have no way of being familiar with my work on the Zodiac case. While I can appreciate your natural skepticism over the provenance of the letter that I posted, I want to tell you that I have a reputation in the Zodiac case as an honest researcher. I would never fake evidence to "prove" my case. My work has been featured in two articles in a major newspaper. I have also been on national television. I would NEVER compromise my hard-earned integrity by posting a doctored document. (And if I did, wouldn't I somehow conspire to put my own suspect's prints on the letter, not try to cast doubt one ones that are apparently not his?) While I did not personally get the Exoricist letter from SFPD, I do believe that this is a genuine (if scientifically unacceptable) image of it. That having been said, let me further prove to you that I have a completely open mind to the possible authencity of these prints as having been unconsciously laid down by the real Zodiac killer with his own hand: One thing about palm prints that I have learned from creating my own is that the ink seems to come off of my hand pretty quickly. I am sure that this goes double for the natural oils of the skin. Therefore, I would imagine that the very FIRST print put onto a page during the writing of a normal letter would be the darkest. The quality of these prints would then diminish as the writer makes his way across and down the page. This seems to be the case for these palm prints. This is a point in their favor. Also, I've noticed that in my own prints, there more proximal portion of my hypothenar pad seems to have prints that swirl "upwards" towards the top of the page. That also seems consistent in the Exorcist palm prints. The one thing that I did see as a discrepancy is that in my own palm prints, there are "fine lines" that traverse the friction ridge pattern on my palm, as well as the large incisures that cut across my palm on the paper. I do not see these on the Exorcist letter. Whether they are there and I simply do not see them or they were somhow covered over by superimposition, I do not know. This is just an observation. (I am discountng the parallel, vertical lines the surround the letter "h" in "echo" as being palm prints.) Is this a red flag? I have no idea. Are those "fine lines" there? If you play with the contrast on the letter, you can, as you probably know, make the prints stand out more. You also said, "...please forgive the healthy skepticism that many folks will have about the authenticity of an image that is not coming directly from police channels and does not comply with www.swgfast.org digital evidence standards for latent print images (no compression or lossless compression image format at a minimum of 1000 ppi sampling of the original evidence)." I understand this completely. However, you have to understand my position as an amateur researcher who has to deal with the crumbs that SFPD allows to fall from its table. We do the very best we can with what we have to work with (and I think we do a pretty good job at that!) If you can persuade an official from SFPD to provide us with an original, high-quality scan of this letter (and of the others, as well), you'd move the case forward greatly. SFPD has little use for these nowadays from a research standpoint: They've closed down their investigation into the case as of April 2004. ;) Mike | ||
| Webservant |
Mike R, Sure enough… if you open the image at www.mikerodelli.com/noname.jpg in Internet Explorer, let the image load completely and hold the mouse cursor over the bottom right corner near the zero until a small square appears, you can click on the square and enlarge the image to see what appears to be a palmprint deposited in the general area where the words “echo” and “sucides” are located. Depending on your monitor settings, you may have to make adjustments to see everything possible because this image seems to have been adjusted to increase contrast. Many of the questions and discussion you are posting in this thread involve theoretical "what ifs" and "whys" that are impossible to answer (such as your query about whether the Zodiac killer may have tried to fake palmprints). I could be wrong (as my loving wife tells me I am often), but it seems you are striving to discount the value of a palmprint or palmprints on one document out of a series because the prints were not made by the person you suspect is involved in the crimes (and possibly is the killer). Whether that is or is not a genuine or fabricated writer’s palm in the image, nobody is indicating that the absence of your suspect's prints means he had no involvement. If that is your goal (keeping him a possible suspect), you need not look any further and you have met your purpose insofar as this Forum. In latent print examination, we cannot prove that a certain person did or did not touch a surface based on the absence of their finger or palm prints. DNA cannot prove that a person was or was NOT at a crime scene based on the absence of their DNA. Questioned Document Examination cannot prove that a person did or did not hold a gun to another's head and force them to write something based on the absence of the gun-holder's identifiable handwriting/handprinting. Firearm's examination cannot prove that a particular weapon did or did not fire over someone's head based on the absence of a projectile or spent shell casing, etc. When there is physical evidence present that links a person/weapon/object to a crime, the police tend to consider that a strong lead barring indications that something is not copacetic with the evidence. The fact that police consider such evidence as strong does not mean that they are discounting all other possibilities (such as your suspect). If you have been doing much research into high profile cases, you have probably encountered more than a few unstable and self-appointed police helpers who each feel they have the only true vision of what nobody else is able to discern. The more public interest and visibility a case has, the more such nuisance helpers seem to come out of the woodwork. I have no reason to believe that the posted image is or is not exactly what you represent it to be. Nonetheless, having operated this and similar www web forums for years and having seen more than a few hoax postings, please forgive the healthy skepticism that many folks will have about the authenticity of an image that is not coming directly from police channels and does not comply with www.swgfast.org digital evidence standards for latent print images (no compression or lossless compression image format at a minimum of 1000 ppi sampling of the original evidence). If you are looking for postings from Latent Print Examiners to indicate that the palmprint in your posted image appears contrived or should perhaps be discounted, I do not think you will get such postings involving an image of this quality. For forensic examination purposes, the image posted is deficient because it is a jpg image and has “lossee” blocking artifacts typical of jpg images with considerable compression. I opened your image in Photoshop and looked at the overall size. A quick estimate is that it was sampled at somewhere in the neighborhood of 280 ppi, far short of the 1000 ppi we would consider suitable for evidence examination purposes. The 280 ppi is my guess based on ridge detail appearance. Unlike most forensic evidentiary photos, no scale is present in the posted image. Also, the contrast and color hues/levels of the posted image do not seem representative of the full 24 bit color radiometric levels expected in an original forensic quality color image. This is probably an image made from a color photograph or negative. There may be additional discernible ridge detail in the original image, especially in the photographic negative. As you are probably aware, unsolved murder cases normally include a tremendous amount of evidence that is not available to the public. Even with previous publications and exposés about the Zodiac case, what is publicly accessible may be only the tip of the iceberg insofar as the physical evidence examined to date. I would expect that the real Latent Print Examiners in the Zodiac case had access to a variety of original, forensic quality photographs. Also, special lighting, filters (such as a Wratten number 58 filter) and/or high contrast (red sensitive) black and white film would typically have been used by crime laboratories in 1974 to capture best possible images of ninhydrin-developed ridge detail. The image posted seems typical of an evidence establishing photo (generic, overall color image not intended to capture fine detail such as latent prints developed in ninhydrin). Your posting about the lack of "steadying" prints from the left hand seems to infer I wrote that the opposite hand's "steadying" fingertips would not be present. I did not write that. They may or may not be present, just as many other types of "touching" of the document may or may not occur and may or may not leave identifiable latent prints. In Michele Triplett's posting of 30 Aug 04, she explained that, "It's possible that the person writing the letter had no substance (sweat or other substance) on their hands that was transferred to the paper. It's also possible that latent images were transferred but the processing technique available at the time didn't recover them."My previous 4 Sep 04 posting stated that “often” an impression from a little finger may be present with a writer’s palm. The absence of the little finger impression does not mean it is not a writer’s palm. Like other professionals, Latent Print Examiners do the best they can with what they know at the time and within the time and material resource constraints of their agencies (or private consultant budgets). I suspect that some of the best Latent Print Examiners in the country have already looked at the Zodiac killer evidence. In probably 2006 or 2007, the next FBI national Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) build should occur, and my personal expectation is that the successful AFIS company or companies winning the contract(s) will provide palmprint technology that gives the FBI a nationwide automated palmprint searching tool similar to what many state and local agencies already possess. At that time, maybe there will be a lucky break and a state or local agency will upload to the FBI the palmprints of the person who touched the one Zodiac letter in question. Everyday, as many as 10,000 persons are fingerprinted by police for their first arrest (and some of those persons are also palmprinted). Even before the next FBI IAFIS build it is possible that the Zodiac letter palmprints will be identified through a "cold hit." Anticipating another question, I have no idea whether the Zodiac palmprints may have already been searched through all possible AFIS systems in the US and overseas that have palmprint searching capabilities (or in manual palmprint classification systems for those agencies possessing those). As mentioned before, it all boils down to manpower and equipment resources. No police agency does everything possible in every case. It is always a matter of government administrators balancing what is believed to be of greatest benefit to the public, along with (of course) whatever the news media feels is hot enough to cause pressure on those responsible for controlling the police purse strings (i.e., pressure on the mayor, governor, president, etc.). Very respectfully, Webservant | ||
| Mike_R |
I just made my own writer's palm prints and an interested in having you look at the ones on the Zodiac letter. The thing that I found about my own writer's palm is that there are characteristic (I presume) "incisures" that appear at the metacarpophalageal joints and just proximal to that, on the line that a palm reader would use to tell your future. I am sure that this is what you were referring to here: "...often with typical hypothenar edge creases accompanied by a transition to smooth (non-papillary) skin and the accompanying curvature of the extreme outer (ulnar) edge of the right little finger has always been consistent with holding a writing instrument adjacent to questioned writing." I also saw the extreme curve of my little finger on my own palm prints. None of these characteristics appears to be visible on the Exorcist letter's writer's palm. Now maybe those portions were not preserved but might this be of any significance? I posted a link to the letter in question: http://www.mikerodelli.com/noname.jpg If you right click and save it to your hard drive, you can bring it up in a photo editor and magnify the letter to see the fine ridge detail. (You probably know this already, but just in case. I am certainly not a computer whiz myself! A friend just told me how to do this recently.) If you do try that, can you give me your impression as to whether or not these are genuine writer's palms or if the lack of the incisures may be an issue? Thanks. Mike | ||
| Mike_R |
Hi Ed- Thanks for such a comprehensive answer to my question about writer's palm in the Zodiac case. I understand that it may be difficult or impossible for someone to SUCCESSFULLY fake such prints. But my question is if Zodiac may have TRIED to do so. I was also curious as to the lack of "steadying" prints from the left hand. I was wondering about that, too. I do not think that such things are generally/universally visible on any of the other letters. I think that writer's palm was only found on this one letter. (There are some random prints on a few letters and what appears to be the side of a left thumb on another letter. However, I do not think that all the people who handled these letters at the newspaper were printed for comparison, as amazing as that sounds.) Since this guy wrote over twenty letters, it seems to be more than chance that there is only one set of writer's palms AND that the two or three letters that he wrote after this one also are absent them. If he had decided to take off his gloves in 1974, why did he do so for only one letter and then take thme off again. (Before the Exorcist letter, Zodiac had not written to the press for almost three years, so it was possible that leaving his prints on the letter was an intentional strategy change, showing that he felt so secure in his position that he didn't care if they had such evidence. However, the "strategy change" did not seem to last very long.) Thanks again for all of your insights! They are amazingly helpful in putting this issue into its proper context. I tried to email you the Exorcist letter in an attachment, so you could see the palm print detail for yourself but your address comes back invalid. Mike | ||
| Webservant |
Regarding the question of how long the forensic community has been aware of writer's palms on letters: Latent Print Examiners have been inherently aware of writer’s palms (though not necessarily calling them by that term) for as long as they have been processing documents bearing handwriting/handprinting.Regarding the question of how long the forensic community has been aware of ninhydrin: The reaction of ninhydrin with primary amino groups to form the purplish discoloration called Ruhemann's purple (RP) was discovered and reported by Siegfried Ruhemann in 1910.Regarding the (related but unasked) question of how long the forensic community has been developing finger and palm prints on documents: The December 1934 issue of “Sparks from the Anvil” includes an article by Fred Inbau titled “Scientific Evidence in Criminal Cases, Fingerprints and Palmprints.” The article includes a footnote stating, “In addition to powders, the application of iodine fumes is sometimes used to develop prints which are so latent, usually appearing on paper, that ordinary powders do not assist in bringing them out.”Regarding the question about whether a “negative” impression can be determined strictly from visual analysis: Think of the three-dimensional friction ridge detail on fingers and palms as being similar to a rubber name stamp. Press the stamp on an ink pad and then stamp a document and you will see the letters appear in a manner consistent with letters being raised.Bottom line: Although anything is possible (there might be eight-legged mice on Venus), the chances of successfully creating an appliance that would have ridge flow and creases consistent with the ulnar edge of the extreme hypothenar area by using Elmer’s glue to pull ridge detail from a foot, is pretty slim. Add to that the problem of incorrect (reverse) color of the ridge detail from such a procedure, and the probability that there would be some telltale edge of the appliance appearing in multiple impressions, and you have an improbable scenario unless there is some additional information yet to be revealed in this case. | ||
| Mike_R |
Hi- Voltaire (I think it was) said, "If you wish to speak to me, you must first define your terms." I started off asking a question on this site without using the correct terminology, so I want to start from scratch. I am wondering how long the forensic community has been aware of "writer's palm" on letters, not palm prints in general. A fingerprint expert who wrote to me earlier this week after seeing my original post said that ninhydrin was invented by the Japanese in the 1950s or 1969s. Can anyone tell me if "writer's palm" wase known of from the inception of the process? What I am trying to learn is if an intelligent and probably well-read criminal could have known enough about this process to have conceived of planting a false clue on the Exorcist letter in 1974. As far back as 1969, Zodiac said in a letter that he had planted "fake clews" at the scene of his cab driver murder in San Francisco. Therefore, we know that faking evidence was part of his mentality. Can anyone possibly cite any books on forensics or other reseources that may have mentioned "writer's palm" (or sometihng akin to the concept) before 1974? My other question is about faking prints. Someone here mentioned that if you use Elmer's to fake a print, you get a "negative". From a practical standpoint in the lab, can this be determined from analysis of a given print? If it is ridge/furrow or furrow/ridge, what is the diffference? Can a "negative" print be determined strictly from visual analysis? Thanks for any help that anyone can give me on these issues! Mike | ||
| Mike_R |
Hi- Here is the letter in question. http://www.mikerodelli.com/noname.jpg Mike | ||
| Mike_Rodelli |
Hi- Given that these are not complete palms that we are talking about on the Zodiac letter, what would be the opinion of the posters here that they could have been faked? There is no issue with the thenar/hypothenar eminences, since we are not looking at complete, palmar surface prints but rather medial aspect (i.e., ulnar side), "knife edge" prints. Mike | ||
| Mike-R |
Hi- Thank you all for your responses. This is true about the palms in question: "If the alleged palmprints are "writer's palms," i.e., consistent with the knife edge of the palm touching the surface while holding a writing instrument to author the questioned writing..." They are "writer's palms". Mike | ||
| Michele Triplett |
Mike, I know almost nothing about this case, but I just wanted to let you know that just because latent prints weren't found doesn't indicate that the person was wearing gloves. It's possible that the person writing the letter had no substance (sweat or other substance) on their hands that was transferred to the paper. It's also possible that latent images were transferred but the processing technique available at the time didn't recover them. With technological advances, there are many processing methods available today that may not have been available at the time. DFO is one processing technique (developed in 1989). It's usually used prior to the ninhydrin process, but in a case such as this it would be worth testing some items to see if it's worth trying this method on the old evidence. Chemical recipes for Ninhydrin have also come a long way and humidity chambers are now available that help ninhydrin work better under different conditions. Paper items can be reprocessed with ninhydrin with no ill effects. Silver Nitrate or Physical Developer can also be used after the ninhydrin process. I know of one case where Physical Developer was used many years after the evidence was originally processed and additional latent prints appeared. Reprocessing the evidence is just a thought, it sure couldn't hurt! Michele | ||
| Webservant |
If the alleged palmprints are "writer's palms," i.e., consistent with the knife edge of the palm touching the surface while holding a writing instrument to author the questioned writing; and... If the spacing of the writer's palms is consistent with the same horizontal and vertical spacing of the questioned writing... Then law enforcement professionals would normally consider the writer's palms as belonging to the suspect. Many things are possible, but the explanation about the Elmer's glue (as mentioned herein) would tend to provide reverse image (depressed ridges and raised valleys) indicative of that sort of foreign substance on a suspect's hand. Also, the interdigital, thenar and hypothenar ridge formations typical of palmprints would not occur in natural locations if transferred from a foot as described. | ||
| Ernie Hamm |
Almost as long as latent fingerprints have been used in the United States. A latent palmprint was identified in connection with the last stagecoach robbery in the United States in December 1916 at Jarbidge, Nevada. ('A Hand from the Old West', Susan Morton, Fingerprint Whorld, 12:46, October 1986) | ||
| Mike_R |
Hi-- I am a researcher in the case of the Zodiac killer of the San Francisco Bay Area of California (1966-74). In 1999, I developed a new suspect in the case. This suspect has been called by some of the detectives who worked on the original investigation the single best one ever developed either inside or outside of law enforcement. I come from a law enforcement family (my brother is a NYPD police lieutenant), but I am an amateur. The Zodiac killer, as you may know, wrote over twenty taunting letters to the press/police from 1969 to 1974. On only one of his letters, his third or fourth to last one (in 1974), there were palm prints found on the paper when it was treated with ninhydrin. Letters have been treated with ninhydrin for years and I am sure that palm prints were developed on letters for all of that time. I realize that it has taken the computer age to isolate a single set of prints from the "swarm" of superimposed palm prints that one lays down while writing. However, exactly when were palm prints first recognized as being the cause for the "swarm" of "smudges" that one can see as the heel of the hand passes over the paper? Specifically, I was wondering if someone might be able to tell me when palm prints first came to the consciousness of the forensic community as potential evidence. I am wondering why Zodiac apparently took steps from 1969 to 1974 not to leave any palm prints (i.e., apparently by wearing gloves when he wrote) and then suddenly took them off for just one letter, only to put them back on again for his last two or three. This is very confusing to me. Was it possible for a very intelligent and technologically apt criminal (which Zodiac definitely proved he was!) to have known of the existence of palm prints from letters in 1974 and to have faked them (i.e., by using wet Elmer's glue to transfer a print from his foot, etc., to his palm)? Or is this concept so new that nobody could have known about it before 1974? Thank you very much for any help that you can give me on this issue. Sincerely yours, Mike Rodelli |
