I fully agree. Here is some further intrigue, extracted from zodiacciphers.com:
“Alan Keel, Criminalist at the San Francisco Police Department, San Francisco, California from 1996 to 1999 "revealed that there were two letters in possession of the department that, in contrast to the "true" Zodiac letters, had abundant saliva and DNA-containing oral epithelial cells on them, that DNA was easily extracted from these two letters, and that the DNA extracted from these two letters matched between them. These two letters were considered forgeries, since the "true" Zodiac verifiable letters had not been licked by the sender". Mike Rodelli, an avid Zodiac researcher, who conversed with Alan Keel, revealed "In contrast (to earlier communications), Keel analyzes two other letters, one of which is the 1978 forgery, and finds that this letter and one of the 1974 letters are loaded with saliva and cells. He then easily extracts DNA from both of these letters using the more primitive DNA technology of that time and finds that the DNA matches between those two letters, thus proving that one person sent both". Mike Rodelli.” LINK TO MIKE’S BOOK
There is further discussion from Richard Grinell in the link at the bottom. Personally, I don’t know if I believe that Toschi wrote either letter. My guess is that he didn’t.
Unlike the general public who could only have copied the envelope from the Dripping Pen card, Toschi had access to plenty authentic Zodiac materials so if he was going to hoax a correspondence would he have styled it in this manner? If it was known that Zodiac had a specific method of sealing envelopes, wouldn’t Toschi be in the know? Very difficult to say in my estimation.
I’ve asked Mike Rodelli if he has any further thoughts on this but I think he may be tired of being asked about it. Ultimately, this vague third hand allusion isn’t enough for me to be certain it is true. If so, we have to dismiss both letters as the work of a long dedicated hoaxer. If you look at the 87 letter it too seems like it is from the same author. It seems that it was dismissed for its resemblance to the 78. Why would a hoaxer copy a letter very publicly dismissed as a hoax? We may never know. Thanks for the interest Regis_Phillies.