Fouke and Zelms: The Final Chapter? Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Zodiackiller.com Message Board » Paul Stine » Fouke and Zelms: The Final Chapter? « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 6:27 pm:   

Here we go again!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Howard_davis
Username: Howard_davis

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 5:41 pm:   

Fouke was only ONE of TWO Officers that were in the crime zone that night.Zelms is dead and so we don't have him to question.All we are left with is Fouke-one of the men who let Z go as it were.
Ret.Det.Bawart has said F was not happy about that part of his career.I would be unhappy too.

'In the mouth of TWO or three witnesses let a thing be established'are wise words.

Duality permits a way we can see if there are any contradictions and the like between the two men and this includes possible collusion and why.
But we have ONE man-this has been part of the problem.

ANY human being is capable of reporting an incident correctly even if he or she happens to be a criminal!Many lawyers have told me that some of their BEST witnesses were criminals or 'unsavory' characters.And yes,criminals lie too.Humans lie!
And they also said that professionals as well as Officers have proven to be liars too!Lawyers lie as well!

So to be very objective and according to history anyone will or can lie no matter what their background is.We can only guess or surmise if Z lied-not reject his account(or accept it)because of his character for we know he told the truth MANY times in his calls and letters (anyone care to list them for they ARE there?)which gives the lie to that Z was practically incapable of telling the truth.Dead wrong!

Detectives have told me -with many years of experience,including just recently when I spoke to a seasoned well known retired SF detective that Offices/detectives lie,cover-up especially for a 'brother'Officer.
Some have planted evidence and worse!This detective laughed when I asked him if there were cover-ups by the brass and Officers in the SFPD!A great many was his reply.

My ex-brother-in-law DA has lots of stories about how honest the authorities are.He was also a CHP and well knew what went on there too.

The timeline is NOT perfect OR exact.It takes only several seconds (I timed it several times-let's not make this into an engineering problem-it is not and is quite simple!)to quickly pull up and ask someone if they 'saw anyone recently acting in a suspicious manner.'Common-very common and correct police procedure.

Reasons for F to lie?Next post!

Jim has posted that he placed our Sandy's own Z/composite account with the Police Artist testimony on zodiacmurders.com.

Of course,on another level we all can decide if F was telling the truth,but I seriously we should believe him because of who he was.He was and is a human being with all that his human nature brings or manifests;so that alone should at least cause one to wait for further light on this issue.

I deeply respect law enforcement.Even my company will be-at my direction- setting up a fund for that profession.
I will support and honor them for the work's sake,but they can and do lie,etc.We find this in all professions including medicine.
Sorry,but it's a fact.They do wonderful things and receive little appreciation from the public.We hope to be able to make a contribution.
God bless them.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 7:02 pm:   

I'm curious as to why one believes Fouke lied about talking to Z, and that whoever it was who claimed to be the composite artist that Sandy talked to 20 years later was unequivocally telling the truth and why that unknown person's veracity is not to be questioned. He was just a voice on a phone who could have been anybody, and the fact that the yellow book had been out for 4 years by that time does not support that person's claim but rather seriously undermines it. Just to make it clear to everyone, I believe Sandy wholeheartedly, it's the person she spoke to I have a very difficult time believing.

What we have is Fouke, who was there, telling us he did not talk to Z and had absolutely nothing to do with any composites that were ever prepared, and the teen witnesses being reported in the paper that they were responsible for both composites as well as saying in a recent interview that they did both. Why is Yellow Book, who has been proven time and again to not only have serious credibility issues but also has a problem with fabricating evidence, believed without question on this point, and yet the teens and Fouke are automatically assumed to be lying?

We also have the timeline that actually is almost perfectly nailed down, and I know there are several who disagree with that premise; the fact is, Pelissetti arrived 60-90 seconds after Z left the cab, and it could not have been more than another 2 minutes before he was at the other end of the block talking to Fouke; what, did he simply dawdle and take a leisurely stroll up the block once he discovered that the killer had left literally seconds before be arrived? The fact that he responded immediately to the call shows he was on top of things; that tells me that he would not have fiddled and farted around at the crime scene once he learned Z was still in the area. Simply put, and taking everything into consideration, even if it took only 30 seconds to slow down, stop, call Z over, ask a question, get a reply, then accelerate up the block, there is still not enough time for that encounter to have occurred and for Fouke & Zelms to have met Pelissetti when they did.

Do cops lie? Sure. Do sociopathic serial killers tell the truth? Of course, but only when it suits them. But it is truly beyond me why it is believed that Fouke and the teens are lying and a murderer is telling the truth on this one point. If it truly happened as Z claimed, why did he not mention it in the very next letter he mailed on 10-13-1969? He spoke vaguely instead of the cops having road races and of killing school kids; why did he wait a full 29 days after the murder to even mention it? Surely something that momentous would have received a lot of pen time from Z in the 10-13-1969 letter, and yet, it did not. Nor did he bother to mention it in the 11-8-1969 Pen card; it's like it was an afterthought, a lie he told just to confuse an already confusing situation even more.

Another thing to consider is that, up until Yellow Book published that horrendous novel of his, the encounter between Fouke & Zelms and Z was never an issue with law enforcement. Why? Because they never stopped to talk to Z, that's why. Yellow Book made something that never happened into the issue we are all arguing about 2 decades later. And considering the real serious problem he has with being truthful and accurate and his penchant for making up stories just to make the case more exciting than he thought it was really needs to be factored in to everyone's thinking here. Just remember the fictitious chase to BRS, the time Yellow Book didn't show a pic of "Walker" to the teens ca. 1975, the encounter that never happened between the cops and Allen at nonexistent Sully Road, the hidden, phantom road that led from Columbus Parkway directly to Allen's house, his claim that Z called it "his outdoor game of chess," and the fact that he listed Lynda Kanes as a possible Z suspect when her killer had in fact been identified, arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced and jailed 15 years before his novel was even published.

Why does anyone believe anything that comes from the mouth or pen of that former political cartoonist?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_r
Username: Mike_r

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 9:10 am:   

Hi-

I have to say that I found Howard's post offensive. I believe that SFPD would cover up something like two officers talking to Z in an a heartbeat. I view the department (Fouke excluded because he was given bad info by Dispatch and was, in essence, "set up") as being both incompetent and politically motivated (see Mike Maloney, November 2005) in its actions and inaction. It is not news to me to be told that SFPD lies and covers up. Just read the news over the past few years! They have plenty of scandals at SFPD. There is even a book out about how incompetent SFPD is ("Hastened to the Grave"). But after speaking to Fouke, Jim and I both think he is being candid and truthful. (Of course, it is more exciting to imagine that he is not doing so, since it makes the story of the encounter much more interesting.)

The bottom line is that if you want to believe the Mrs. Zelms story, what it tells you is that the sketches are unequivocally very accurate, as the kids say they are (since Eric thought the likeness was so great that he actualy carried it around with him), and that Z was definitely NOT one ALA, son of Yellow Book (since Fouke would then have stood face to face with him and seen him for a long period of time up close). But beyond busting SFPD and catching them in a lie, this line of reasoning really doesn't bring us any closer to uncovering the truth about who Z really was (other than safely eliminating Allen, which I think we can do anyway, based on the reactions of the Stine witnesses and Fouke to his photo in the 1980s, as well as the sketches), which is the ultimate goal of everyone here (I think). Even if Fouke and Zelms had a ten minute conversation with him, timelines be damned, Fouke still can't tell us who Z was! Whether they stopped him or not, that fact doesn't change. So in the end, the issue becomes an academic one and fodder for endless discussion.

People are always clamoring for more facts. Jim and I interviewed Fouke and the Stine witnesses. I posted a lot of the crucial information that they shared (which most people would not do with hard-won "work product"). Then people say, "Thanks. Now we want even more facts." The thirst for facts is endless, especially in certain individuals, but when they are obtained and the witnesses are interviewed, it still doesn't resolve anything because there is an endless string of new issues that come up, like the question of why Fouke drove into the park and not down Jackson Street after he realized that he had passed the murderer. Fouke gave a very reasonable and detailed explanation for why this happened. Again, we can debate these issues until we are all blue in the face but they will not allow us to turn back the clock and have Fouke turn his car around (whatever good it may have done, anyway) and they will not help us to idenify Z in 2006.

There are much bigger fish to fry in 2006 than debating this issue over and over. SFPD is holding crucial evidence hostage-and has been doing so under the guise of financial and manpower constraints for years. I get tired of writing about it over and over. The case could possiby be solved if Riverside and SFPD were forced to analyze their evidence and pool/compare the results. At least then we'd have a more reliable DNA sample to work with. The whole Fouke issue is a distraction, IMHO. Other eyewitnesses, who got a much better look at Z, are the keys to the case, not Don Fouke (at his own admission, when he was told about the circumstances under which the kids saw Z!), since he only glanced at Z. Their sketches captured what the killer looked like that night, as he was studied in almost perfect viewing conditions. As such, those sketches are the important things to come out of the night of October 11, 1969, not some endless debate over whether or not these two officers spoke or didn't speak to Z. Let's move on to more crucial issues.

Mike
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 10:33 pm:   

I agree with you on several points, Mike, but I'm not as amenable about dismissing Fouke's encounter with Z as being merely a distraction. This is a prime example of how Yellow Book has poisoned this case with so much misinformation and outright fabrication just to make a buck or two. Maybe 20 years ago it was OK (actually, it wasn't even then), but 20 years later, we have people who read that damnable yellow book and suddenly they know everything about the case. In a few months, a movie based on those novels will come out, and we have no way of knowing how many of Yellow Book's fabrications will be presented as fact. Those who know nothing of the case who watch it because their favorite actor is in it will become an instant expert; the fabrications that have remained confined to a small, select group (ie, the people who are interested in and study the case) will suddenly be known by everyone. While the movie will undoubtedly be entertaining, I am hoping it will not be loaded with the multitude of fabrications from the novels it is based on.

What it comes down to for me is the truth, and I do know that ultimately, this minor footnote is just that: a minor footnote in the Z case. However, if it can be shown that Yellow Book will go as far as to fabricate something that is so minor to this case, then he will be proven to be totally untrustworthy in anything and everything else.

Since I studied history in college, one of the things I am concerned with regarding the historical Z case is keeping it factual and accurate, so even this small point needs to be straightened out once and for all. Had there been JTR researchers starting in 1888 staying on top of things and sorting out fact from fiction, we wouldn't have more than a fraction of the suspects 118 years later than we actually do, and the wild theories would be at a minimum.

I know not everyone is concerned about it, but I am for the reasons outlined above. It's nearly proven impossible for the alleged conversation to have taken place; once it is, we can move on to the next fabrication and deal with it too.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_r
Username: Mike_r

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 7:19 am:   

Hi Ed-

I guess I should have been clearer regarding the overall importance of Fouke's sighting to the history of the Zodiac case. Of course, his story is quite critical for some of the crucial things he CAN tell us--like the fact that his description of Z bolsters the sighting and overall description that the kids gave of the killer. It is the simply the debate over whether he spoke to Z or not that night that I see as a diversion with respect to solving the case in 2006.

The treatment that Fouke's story was given by Yellow is also an important model for understanding how RG treated the other eyewitnesses to the Stine murder, as well as Dean Ferrin, IMO. And I think that there are even more layers to what you said than we might realize at first glance.

I agree with you 100% that the treatment of Fouke by Yellow is an important example of how he was only willing to present his own version of the "truth" in his book. I think that his motivation was that he did not wish to create any room for doubt that Allen was Z. (Both the kids, as supported by their sketches, and Fouke firmly deny that Allen was the man they saw that night.) Now, many people have their own ideas about who Z was, and I am one of them. The problem is that in the preface of the first book, RG said that it was his goal to present "every scrap of evidence" to his readers. Clearly, he fell short in this mission by excluding key eyewitness interviews from the story! I believe that these oversights, since they are so glaring given the importance of these witnesses to the core Zodiac story, were systematic in nature, not innocent (not that I have any proof of this, though!). I feel that in doing so, he did an unbelievably huge disservice to a case on which he is (ironically) widely viewed as being "the expert" by the very masses that he manipulated andc deprived of this information.

Also, consider this: Fouke told me and Jim that after RG's first book came out, he sought out Yellow and called him to complain about the fact that RG never got his side of the story. RG blew him off with an "apology" that was not really an apology. Then RG failed to speak to Fouke and get Fouke's side of things for his SECOND book! Maybe the first time was an oversight or absentmindedness. But what about the second snub!?

The kids from PH told Jim that RG never tried to contact them at all for the first (or second) book, which they found quite surprising. And that is perplexing, considering that he interviewed Darlene's babysitters and Bobby Oxnam for his first and second books (as well as including a chapter on psychic Joseph DeLouise in his first book)! (He also failed to interview Dean Ferrin, despite speaking to babysitters, a psychic and Oxnam!)

The thing that the kids, Fouke and Dean Ferrin all have in common is that they all throw cold water on RG's scenario of Allen-as-Z. The other thing they have in common is that none of them was interviewed for either RG book. See a pattern? I do. Were Fouke and the kids more obscure witnesses than the babysitters and a psychic, I could cut RG some slack on this issue. But these are "cornerstone" eyewitnesses, as described by Jim Dean, who were completely ignored by RG, just as SFPD seemed to have turned them out.

The thing that I was thinking about recently is this: If Fouke did speak to Z, when RG's book came out and stated that as fact, wouldn't Fouke have been inclined to think that the cat was out of the bag and that RG had sources inside of the department that may have confirmed this "fact"? I am wondering why he'd ask to be interviewed to give an opposing point of view if he knew he was peddling lies or "spinning" his sighting in the mid-1980s. There were, after all, others who most surely had to know the truth about Fouke's encounter within SFPD that RG might have gotten to speak to. If I were Fouke, I might have been inclined to keep my mouth closed, live in obscurity, and let sleeping dogs lie. But he didn't. He wanted a retraction or a more balanced report on the events of that night.

Food for thought. Doesn't prove anything but...

Mike
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 9:59 am:   

Mike,
I don't necessarily disagree with any of the points you have made and am more and more inclined (though not fully convinced)at this stage to accept that no conversation took place,it was always an academic point anyway.
That said,I still feel you are missing the point here on several levels.
You have criticized Graysmith on many issues and not without justification. Nothwithstanding Ed's point about people reading his lies and believing them, this issue has now taken on a life of it's own, where Graysmith is a convenient scapegoat for everything that wrong with this case.
Now I'm not here to defend him, he deserves some criticizm at the very least, for all the reasons you have pointed out.
However the bottom line is Graysmith didn't run this investigation, but we would believe from various comments that any witness who gave an answer not in keeping with your version of events, were quoting from his book.
This has escalated to the point now where you have discovered the only officer within S.F.P.D not led by the nose by Graysmith.
It's used to account for Pelissetti statements, that he thought a conversation took place.
It's used to account for Toschi's apparent comments. how do you know for example that Graysmith wasn't told by Toschi that he did speak with Fouke. You had his ear, did you ask him?
Did you go to Pelissetti and ask him for his version? Or is it a case now that we needen't bother since we have Fouke's version?.....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 10:10 am:   

How do we know that graysmith's failure to go to these witnesses wasn't influenced by Toschi's opinion that the sketches were useless?
What it's been now, a couple of years and four interviews later with Fouke. I'm betting that you could ask any poster here, regardless of their opinion on the conversation, what they would have asked Fouke.
Top of that list is an explanation on why it took himso long to come forward with his evidence about Zodiac walking north on Maple as opposed to into a private residence. Yet despite many appeals here and claims that Jim and yourself asked Fouke "every possible question you could think of" we have no reply on this.
Why is that?
You can also make claims about what Fouke can attest to, yet, (if only to put the record straight) you still haven't dealt either with the apparent claims of Mel Nicolai.This goes right to the heart of the question. Mabye Fouke never gave an alternative description over the radio, but then maybe he did! Do you not think it a revelant thing to ask?
What's the difference between going to fouke and not asking all the questions or not having gone to him at all?
If he was lying (and I'm not saying he was)do you think you would have been told a different story?
Is it just because he went on record that you assume he must be telling the truth?
The whole point being, there were about 5 possible things to ask Fouke, that's all.
Yet we are this far down the line and there's still no record of him being asked the most obvious questions.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_r
Username: Mike_r

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 12:41 pm:   

Hi Sean-

You wrote:

"Top of that list is an explanation on why it took himso long to come forward with his evidence about Zodiac walking north on Maple as opposed to into a private residence. Yet despite many appeals here and claims that Jim and yourself asked Fouke "every possible question you could think of" we have no reply on this."

From my site:

"F: ...And he turned into the residence and proceeded up the stairs as if he lived there. We’re gone by then…by the time he’s up two steps. So I figure that a suspect wants to get away from the area. The fastest way is to turn around, walk up Maple and go through the Presidio wall into Julius Kahn park. He could hide in the bushes or the trees..."

The answer is that while Fouke saw the man on the steps, he did not think that the guy actually continued up them and into the residence. He felt that the guy was duping him (because obviously a cab robber is not going to live in a mansion in PH). There are not two stories here: Going up the steps and then into the park are part of the same continuum in Fouke's mind. So he never covered up or held back info on the guy heading into a residence. He simply wrote what he thought the ultimate outcome of the man's actions were--that he had escaped into the park. The proof is that that is where Fouke headed--into the park!

There is no fire here. The reasoning was on my website.

I have to tell you that I'm tiring of your endless need for information. It's easy to sit in Ireland and bang out emails to people and ask them to do research and supply you with more and more information. My suggestion to you is that you move to SF and begin your own comprehensive investigation into the Z case. I was able to do it from New Jersey, so why couldn't you do it if you moved there? I can't possibly please you because the more I ask and post, the more you ask. Maybe you can do a better job than Jim and I have done.

Quite frankly, I don't care if you believe Fouke or not.

Your problem is that you have solved all these codes and have found that they point at a suspect that these eyewitnesses completely laugh off. You're looking for a way to keep Allen in the hunt based on the descriptions and it ain't happening. Fouke described Allen to Jim and me the last time we spoke as being "380 pounds" in the photo that Bawart showed him! Allen wasn't 380 lbs., but that is how Fouke PERCEIVED him--as being much, much bigger than the man he saw that night (aside from the “hair issue”, etc.). Neither Fouke nor the kids agree with the man whose name comes out of your “code solutions.” And if you want to make it so that Fouke had an even longer and more up-close and personal encounter by stopping and speaking to Z, then you are simply creating even more problems for yourself because then theoretically, Fouke should have described someone who is even closer to ALA, not less like him.

The bottom line is that it doesn't matter what may have come out of Fouke's mouth that night or at any other time. He had the a similar problem in describing Z's height (as stated to us the last time he spoke to us in an unpublished part of the transcript of the conversation) that Hartnell did: Fouke was sitting down in a car while the man he got a glimpse of was standing up (and was even starting up some stairs). Whoever he saw, that person did not impress him as being one Arthur Leigh Allen. I'm not saying that he necessarily saw my guy or anyone else. But HE says, as does one of the key teenaged eyewitnesses from that night, that he did not see Allen.

I resent your statement about my having people believe that any witness who does not say something that is in keeping with my own ideas is quoting from Graysmith. That is complete and utter BS.

As for Fouke, I am not naive enough to believe that just because he is talking to us, he is necessarily telling the truth. What makes me believe that he is telling the truth is that he has never dodged one question, has offered us personal details of his life that are out of bounds from the context of the Zodiac case that he did not have to share with us, and that his story is consistent from one interview to the next. He always closes by offering to talk to us again if we need even more info. If I had something to hide, I might be inclined to talk to someone once and then tell them I’ve said my peace and that is it. Not so with Fouke.

But knock yourself out. Assume he is lying and covering up about speaking to Z. Where does that get you? Unless you want to believe that he not only spoke to Z and saw him up close and is lying about who it was he had seen for some unknown reason. And while he is at it, he is conspiring with the kids from PH to get them to lie about what they saw, too. It is a conspiracy against Allen. The story gets kind of complex here, no?

Either that or because of a screw up by SFPD downtown, Fouke was set up to look for a black male while he was on the way to the crime scene. He saw a white guy in a wealthy neighborhood where (according to Fouke) you don’t usually bother the residents because they are rolling in money and are not there to be bothered. He drove past this man after catching a glimpse of him and then decided that the man was headed into the park. The best way to cut him off was to drive into the park and get him before he got too deep into the wooded area, which is a logical thought despite any other options that he might have utilized. He failed to find the man despite his efforts. That man did not look like Arthur Leigh Allen.

I am currently trying to track down even more witnesses to shed light on this story, as is another researcher. After defending Fouke here based on what I know and what he has told us, if I do find a credible source to back up another version of events, I’ll be the first to say that there is a problem. For now, however, I think that Fouke is playing it straight up with us.

Mike
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 1:41 pm:   

Hi Mike,
First up, is to tackle this continuous problem you have in which you answer the person instead of the question. It's not your first time you have attempted to second guess my motives and answer accordingly.
That says more about you than it does about me.

Let's see if you can follow simple logic. If Fouke talked to Zodiac, he got a much better and closer look. How does that keep Allen in the hunt?
Does it actually not strengthen you own case?
So, if my movites are designed to bolster the case against Allen or stick a fly in your ointment
I've got it seriously wrong haven't I or is it you that has it wrong?
We've had this discussion before remember? when you deleted from your site other claims you believed I was making? Cop yourself on, please.

Secondly, I can't read Fouke's mind. If his explanation for writing "North on maple" on an offical police document was that he thought that where he was heading, well then that's his explanation. However, be fair, that was far from clear and I'm betting many other people didn't know that either.
There was no record of you asking him the question outright. I'll bet many will be surprised by that.....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 1:50 pm:   

So, I promise (last question)is it your position that you put that question to Fouke and that was his answer?

It's unfortunate that you believe I'm asking too many questions, that's me. I like to have all the fact and judge for myself, rather than having other people (regardless) telling me what I should be believing. I think you should be willing to expand on your own theory, especially on so important an issue. But you are correct, I should do my own research.

The fact remains that Nicolai's claims are important, regardless of suspect, they go right to fouke's ability to comment. the are more suspects in this case than X and Allen, but hey,maybe they'll have to do their own research too. God forbid we should trouble you with fine detail.

As it stands both pelissetti and toschi have a different story to Fouke. Hell, when questioned, they might back up everything he said. Then again they might stick to their stories and have a similar convincing argument.
Personally, and with no disrespect to Fouke, i'd prefer to wait until all the information is in.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_r
Username: Mike_r

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 4:04 pm:   

Hi Sean-

"Let's see if you can follow simple logic."

This is exceedingly condescending but I'll ignore it for now because I don't want to be seen as ducking your questions.

As for what your position is on Allen, why don't we backtrack and have you tell me if I am missing something. My understanding is that you have sent code solutions to SFPD in which you claim that Allen's name falls out of the code(s) and is, presumably, the Zodiac killer. Am I following correctly so far? That seems to imply that you would expect that Fouke should have seen Allen that night. Is there a hole somewhere in my reasoning? Why not share your motivations with us?

"However, be fair, that was far from clear and I'm betting many other people didn't know that either."

I think that if you read what Fouke said, he is stating that even though he saw the guy walk up a step or two, he felt that the man was headed into the park. I don't think it is that difficult to follow. And if you understand that, then it is not a great leap to why he cut to the chase in his report in 1969 and said that the guy went into the park.

As for why he has come forward so late, he indicated that the guy went into a "private residence" as far back as the COTC show. He had seemingly not had many opportunities to comment on these issues since 1969, since RG never interviewed him for his first book.

I can ask Fouke this the next time we speak with him why he stated in the COTC show that Z walked into a "private residence" but in 1969, he said the park, if it is so crucial. How does this help us catch Z again in 2006? I forget. Are you going after the guy who lived there by any chance?

What are Nicolai's claims regarding Fouke (or whatever issue you're referring to)? I'm not aware of them.

Mike
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 5:35 pm:   

Howard wrote:

"And yes, criminals lie too. Humans lie!
And they also said that professionals as well as Officers have proven to be liars too! Lawyers lie as well!"

How about your "ex-brother-in-law DA," Howard, is he capable of lying?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 2:18 am:   

Sean, one thing to remember is that, regardless as to whether Allen was truly Z or not, Yellow Book had an agenda when he wrote his novel, and that was to prove that his suspect was Z even if he had to fabricate the evidence to do so. Obviously, Armstrong and Toschi considered the teen witnesses important enough to bring them in to prepare a second composite, so the possibility that Toschi's later opinion about the sketches negatively influencing Yellow Book should not have been his reason for ignoring them as well as Fouke. The agenda is pretty clear: they all got a good look at Z, the composites (which, btw, I do not think are necessarily all that accurate) do not in any way resemble Allen, and so therefore he had to minimize their importance to the case yet fabricate what he needed from them while building an exciting story about Z stalking Dee in order to implicate Allen. This angle, btw, was ultimately derived from the 1971 The Zodiac Killer, where Jerry the mailman (who was secretly the Zodiac) knew the waitress at the diner he frequented, and killed her because their special one day was rabbit stew and Jerry loved rabbits.

Personally, I'm not too concerned about Z walking north on Maple versus entering a private residence; I'm glad that Mike and Jim are talking to Fouke and that he's cleared a lot of stuff up! But, that's just me...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 4:46 am:   

Ed,
I accept without reservation that Graysmith had an agenda.
Now, if the accounts of a conversation between Fouke and Zodiac in his book are true, then Fouke is lying.
If the accounts in the book are false, then not only has Graysmith lied, but Toschi was partner to that. Toschi as a professional officer was willing (because of a friendship with Graysmith apparently) to blacken the names of fellow officers (one who died in the meantime) for no good reason.
I'm not saying he didn't do that, maybe he did, if he did, that makes him worse than Graysmith.
The point being, Mike was in contact with Toschi and never asked the question.
Now suppose Toschi is interviewed and says, hold on a minute "On October 17th both Armstrong and myself interviewed Fouke over at the Richmond Station, the accounts in graysmith book are accurate, go ask Armstrong"
What then? Where does that leave Fouke?......
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 5:06 am:   

As it stands, the only words we have from Pelissetti are that "the officers did speak to some guy".If true Fouke is lying. If not, Pellisetti is mistaken.One of the reasons given for that is that he might have read Graysmith's book.Maybe he did.
If he's interviewed and says hold on a minute,I never spoke to Fouke that night or, yes I spoke to Fouke and he told me he had just spoken with a white guy. What then?

We are now in the following situation:-
Despite clear statements saying he and Jim asked "every possible question they could think of"
Mike approaches Fouke and doesn't ask about the North on maple/Private residence issue.Not only that, but he can't figure what's so important.
Two days after Stine was killed the whole world knew Zodiac was responsible.A search of the park was conducted that night with no result.
When Fouke wrote that statement he knew this and apparently said, what the hell, it's the same thing.Never dawns on him that Zodiac may have off-loaded or left evidence at that site.Never thinks that it might be useful to mention that.
I sure a very full and thorough investigation took place with all personell in the presidio.
Not that that was a waste of time, but do you not think it would have been useful information to mention.
How do we know at this time that Fouke will have a reasonable explanation in the first place?
Isn't it relevant?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 5:18 am:   

Right on this site, for that last couple of years now is an alleged statement from Mel Nicoli. He says that Fouke came on the radio that night and first described a guy 6 ft to 6ft 2" and over 200lbs. Is it true? I don't know.
However it goes to Fouke's ability to comment on suspects, not just Allen or X, all suspects.
We have always been told that eyewitness testimony
is notoriously unreliable. Far more important than any conversation is knowing/been able to gauge how relaibale a witness might or might not be.
Question was never asked!
Mike is tired of me asking questions and I'm tired of him lumping me in some category or other, implying that I'm acting dishonestly. The truth is all that matters here.
If I'm arguing that Fouke may have spoken to Z, then he got a closer look and is in a better position to comment. Where does that leave Allen?
I'll let others decide, who's dancing around what.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_r
Username: Mike_r

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 7:22 am:   

Hi Sean-

Believe me, I'm not as stupid as you think. Stop with the condescension! I have considered that Zodiac may have walked through the property and dumped his gun and shed some clothes along the way--or even hid out there. But Fouke didn't consider it as a possibility because he felt that the guy was duping him.

I have not posted all of my transcript because it is my own work product. But here is the relevant part to show you how condescending you're being:

"F: You remember when we talked before about where he lived in the area, I think we came up with an address of XXXXXXX. [address of property into which Z disappeared]

J: That’s right. That’s what it was.

M: What is this now? This is where the guy disappeared?

J: This is the stairs that he was last seen going up.

F: Going into…it doesn’t mean that that is where he lived or any of the rest of it. Or, in fact, that he went in there.

M: Right.

F: My assumption that he came back out and went down Maple and into the Presidio is: 1) because there is good cover there, 2) I couldn’t see him, 3) He would have to assume that we knew he went into XXXX.

M: Right. So that explains also why…cause, you know, one of the other things is that, well, if you saw him walking into that residence, why didn’t you go back to that residence to see if the guy was on the grounds or he had taken the family hostage or if he was holed up in the house…

F: When you go into a posh, “high-rise” or wealthy neighborhood and start demanding to go into people’s houses…

M: Well, I mean, that’s a good point…

F: Think about it. You’re just a patrolman. You go and you knock on the door and demand entrance to search somebody’s house. There’s a thing called the Fourth Amendment that you just can’t do that without a warrant. You can seal off the building..."

Whatever the case, Fouke, according to him, got only a fleeting glimpse of the suspect as he (Fouke) was seated in a car and the guy was walking up some steps. Could you blame him for overestimating his height under those circumstances? For the most accurate description of what Z looked like, I'd stick with the Stine eyewitnesses for many, many reasons that are detailed on my web site. Just look at their sketches to understand what Z looked like--and what he did not look like.

Fouke is only a secondary witness with regard to the description of Z! He even deferred to the kids when he was told of the circumstances of their sighting. One of the key teenaged eyewitnesses, who studied Z very carefully that night, completely rejects Allen as Z, and he was shown a photo of Allen by Bawart.

Ed-

Toschi and Armstrong did not ask the kids for a second sketch. I do not even know how involved they were with the first sketch, since it was Coreris and Fotinos who got the kids together with the artist, not T and A. The kids' family initiated the second sketch by calling SFPD and requesting a second sit down with one of the kids.

Mike
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 8:21 am:   

Hi Mike,
I've never taken you for stupid and never said anything of the kind. I'll stop with the condescension, with you stop assuming and implying
that my motives are dishonestly based on getting Allen into the picture, deal?

Would it be fair to say (from the above transcription) that Fouke (while he may have assumed he was duped and that Z headed for the presidio)must have considered the possibilities regarding that residence, since he offers an excuse as to why he didn't go back there?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 8:33 am:   

Hmm... looks like Toschi & Armstrong really dropped the ball on that one then, Mike. Why did I think it was them? Thanks for the correction...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_r
Username: Mike_r

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 8:50 am:   

Hi Sean-

When you ask someone if they can follow "simple logic", it is not the most flattering thing you can say abvout them. The implication is that I'm not all that bright.

Don't you have a whole series of code solutions with Ray that you've even sent to SFPD that name Allen as Z? This is the framework in which I am viewing your comments and questions. If you have distanced yourself from that work and that conclusion, please correct my misconception. I'm not implying that I can read your mind of your motives in asking certain things. You are already on the record, as far as I am concerned, as saying that the code solution is something like the most impressive series of coincidences we'll wee in the Z case (not an exact quote, but the wording is on the archived board), and that it points out Allen as the guy.

Anyone who has read my web site can see what my theory on the case is. What is your theory on who Z was? Maybe that is where we need to start.

I think that Fouke may not have thought out the full scope of implications about the house back then. I think that he assumed, as would be logical at first blush, that a cab robber did not live in a mansion and dismissed any other possibility after that. He decided that the guy was duping him and headed into the park and acted accordingly by heading there to cut the guy off. Just my opinion.

Ed-

I do not know if T and A had any association with the sketch, the artist or the kids at the time of the sketch. If you watch one of the Z shows, Coreris states that he and Fotinos were the ones who got the kids together with the artist.

Mike
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 9:09 am:   

Hi Mike,
Well,one followed the other, when you were implying that my motives were dishonestly designed
to keep Allen in the picture I didn't like it, because that's not the way I am.I replied in similiar fashion outlining exactly why that could not be the case.
Yes, I do have code work relating to Allen. I am currently about to outline that theory on the board. But I don't look at things that way, this is a hobby, the theory is a theory.I will not be dishonest with it, neither will I attempt to scupper other people theories based on that.
If someone makes sense, they make sense, if they don't I'll judge it on that.I keep an open mind on all suspects.It doesn't really matter how this turns out with respect to my own theory.The lynchpin that holds all of it together, is I believe very interesting,but it will be judged on that. It's either a case of the code being correct or the code not being correct....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 9:19 am:   

If it's incorrect, that's the end of Allen with me.If it's correct, the most logical deduction is that he was the Zodiac, but not necessarily so, he would have to be tied in some way.
I won't defend Allen anywhere unless I believe in it and I haven't done so.
To that end, other things don't matter. If Allen wasn't the guy who killed Stine, he wasn't the guy who killed Stine, either way it won't change the code. The code won't be wrong because Allen didn't kill, it will be wrong because it's flawed.
Similarily if the code is correct, it still doesn't matter what the existing evidence appears to be, there will have to be some link to Allen.

As for these discussions, you have a situation that only most could dream of, being able to interview witnesses who were there.
Both of our theories could come and go and these witnesses won't be around for ever.It's essential to understand everyone's role in these things in order to test their evidence. It's easy to form an opinion early on, any anyone could be right or wrong. I just want to see all the witnesses interviewed and hear what they have to say before coming to a final decision.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 11:42 pm:   

I'm not sure where Fotinos is, but Coreris still lives locally. Since he was in on the composite, he should be able to tell us who the artist actually was, and will hopefully know if he was still with SFPD as of 1990.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_r
Username: Mike_r

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 2:55 pm:   

Hi-

OK, Sean. I see where you're coming from now. I just don't want to hammer away at Fouke with agenda based questions designed to bring the description closer to Allen closer based on your code work. The fact is that neither witness thought he saw Allen, despite what Fouke may or may not have said over the air or at any time subsequent to that night. He indicated that Allen was "way out of proportion" after seeing his photo.

The thing you have to remember about Fouke is that he is not the key eyewitness with respect to a description of Z. He can only supplement what the kids saw, since they had a far superior vantage point, a longer viewing time, were concentrating on what they saw, etc. He can clarify what happened in his own encounter, subject to whether or not people believe him, of course. He has given us the details, as well as his reasoning for going into the park, whether it is satisfying or not. He admitted that being seated in a car made it difficult to judge height, as I discussed earlier.

We know from Fouke what he did, where he last saw the killer, where he thinks Z went and why, what he (i.e., Fouke) thought, and why he took the actions he took. That is a whole lot more than we knew when RG ran the case.

Mike
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 6:35 pm:   

Mike R. wrote:

"We know from Fouke what he did, where he last saw the killer, where he thinks Z went and why, what he (i.e., Fouke) thought, and why he took the actions he took. That is a whole lot more than we knew when RG ran the case."

You are absolutely right, Mike. Thank you for contributing what you have to this whole Fouke scenario. I'm convinced more now than ever that Fouke was telling the truth all along and your interviews affirm this conclusion. You're more of an authority on the Zodiac case than Graysmith ever was or ever will be. Thanks for your tireless work.

Now, let's talk liars for a moment, especially since the Fouke scenario all comes down to credibility issues. And because Howard seems more than willing to perpetuate mistruths (at the very minimum, unsubstantiated speculation) about Fouke (remember, we've been discussing this for MORE than 10 threads), I've begun to wonder about this "ex-brother-in-law DA" source of his. To wit, how can somebody possibly trust the word of a man that has demonstrated twice that he is capable of lying? If Howard's ex-brother-in-law is part of a conspiracy to cover-up the Zodiac crimes, that would be example number one. If he later discloses this information to Howard, who isn't on a need-to-know basis with the LADA, that is a second example of showing an ability to lie because he would have been "breaking silence," as it were, which would have been sworn to be upheld with his co-conspirators. Therefore, what reason would we have to believe a theory that is rooted in information originating from a less than credible source? You have to admit, those are damned good questions. Howard?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 6:17 am:   

Hi Mike,
I'm sorry, you still have me wrong.This isn't about agenda based questions designed to bring the description closer to Allen, it's about having the recored straight for the future, and ensuring we don't end up back where RG left us by not having all sides of the story, or the full story. Forget Suspects!
Like I've said earlier, this is about understanding everyone's role in this.In my mind, the questions to be put the Fouke are simply and straightforward and ones that we have all asked about( regardless of suspect).

1.It has been claimed that you spoke to Z that night, can you account for this. (you've done that and Fouke has given a reasonable and believable explanation)
2.In your memo, you said the last place you seen Zodiac was heading north on Maple.At a later date you changed that to a private residence. Why so?
At this point in that is far from clear.
Yes' there can be an implied explanation for that night, however,this memo, was written after you knew the suspect was Z. Why did you not (apparently) come forward with the information on the private residence, even after that.
Remember,(according to your transcript above , Fouke doesn't say, it never entered my mind, he gives an excuse for not doing so...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Douglas_oswell
Username: Douglas_oswell

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 6:29 am:   

Could someone with access to the guy just possibly give him a prepared list of written questions and let him respond with a set of written answers? Can he read? Can he write?

The same goes for Hartnell and everyone else involved as a witness. Hartnell, especially, because he's absolutely terrible in his verbal responses--if I didn't know better I'd think he was a schizophrenic.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 6:57 am:   

3. The Mel Nicolai claim? what we have at this point Mike is an explanation as to why he may have misjudged height? That's different from knowing if Fouke actually came out with that description first day ( and if he did) why he revised both height and weight downward.
It also ties directly to the next question.
4. The memo. In my mind Fouke couldn't have given a better description had he watched this guy for twenty minutes. His effort was far more detailed that the teens , right down to colours, material and even "flat shoes". In fairness (whichever way you look at things) it's some detail for a 5 second drive by. His memory over the years might have faded, but then should we be looking at the description he gave when it was freshest in his mind.
Why did he later change from Flat shoes to Engineering boots?

Suppose Mike, just for the sake of argument, that people here (as they are doing), are drawing definite conclusions, based on your interviews with Fouke and then at some time in the future another researcher approaches Pellesitti and or Toschi and they can back up their claims?
I'm sure you understand where that will leave things. It's not about suspects it's about the whole picture.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Douglas_oswell
Username: Douglas_oswell

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 7:49 am:   

I'd say, Sean, that the answer to your questions about Fouke's inconsistencies is that once the significance of the sighting became known he tried to wring those details from his recollections. It's a natural thing. In my opinion nothing more than the merest generalities could have come from a sighting under the conditions that prevailed when it happened.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 11:53 am:   

You could be 100% correct Doug.However, the whole point here is there is confusion, Mike (no disrespect)is giving answers based on what he thinks Fouke may have thought, why he may have done this,that or the other, when the man is available to be asked.
We may never get this opportunity again!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 12:14 pm:   

Speaking of opportunities, Eric Zelms is the Forgotten Man here. It might be possible to talk to some of his friends and co-workers while they are still alive. He must have talked to someone about that night before he was killed with his own weapon on Jan. 1 1970. He also would have heard radio transmissions in the Patrol car, and maybe even some of Pellesetti's conversation.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 6:00 pm:   

Here's a link to SFPD personnel killed in the line of duty. If you click to the home page or one of those links, History of SFPD, they now have a comment about Zodiac in their 60's-70's History .

http://www.sfgov.org/site/police_index.asp?id=2018 1
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 6:14 pm:   

Here's a link to 2006 composite drawings by an SFPD artist. It is of interest to compare it to previous composites. This must be a first, BTW, a murder in Coit Tower:

http://www.sfgov.org/site/police_index.asp?id=3880 2
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 6:58 pm:   

Am I the only one missing something here?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 8:24 pm:   

No Scott, you're not the only one! Plenty of others are missing the Boat too, by not dealing with the other witness in Presidio Heights that night.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_r
Username: Mike_r

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 3:25 pm:   

Hi Scott-

Thanks for the kind words. I've taken heat on this board over the years because of my ideas. However, I am just a guy who has a theory but who also realizes that there is more to the case than just trying to prove one's own ideas. I have gone after the facts, wherever they may lead me, and the ones I have located myself, with Ed or with Jim have always been my best friends. And I've chased down a lot of them.

Less than a year after the DNA "exclusion" in 2002, Jim ends up showing the Stine witnesses a photo of X that SFPD had in its possession since 1999 that they never bothered to show these people (which is an outrage if you know certain facts about the relationship between the witnesses and one SFPD Inspector). The reaction was so strong that it made me wonder even more about the DNA in its current state. (That plus the fact that X had a hobby in the 1960s that would have made him quite aware of saliva testing, even if it was not for DNA at that time. This is something that Carroll missed completely in the 2002 show, when he at least implied that Z would have had to essentially presage DNA testing itself in order to avoid licking envelopes. I seriously doubt that he would worry about a stray hair getting on a stamp, though.) (Hint, hint! Can you say "mitochondrial DNA"?)

It was completely serendipitous that Jim an I happened to get to speak to the Stine witnesses by being in the right place at the right time. We did not set out to try to contact them in any way. Like a lot of things in the case where I am concerned, it something that just just "happened to happen". I did pursue Fouke for quite a few years and finally got a break on how to locate him. (Can't reveal sources, though.) Jim was the one who broke the ice.

The upshot is that it is easy for one to feel like you've "wasted years of your life" pursuing what may well turn out to be a dead-end theory. But the knowledge that I have been able to at least participate in moving the information base of the case itself forward is some solace, even if I am wrong about who Z was. It is something I daresay I am proud of. And yes, because I have tried to live up to the goal that RG set for himself of putting all the facts before the public, I feel that I know the case better than he does. But that is his own fault; he had the opportunity to learn everything I have tracked down and more but for whatever reason passed on the opportunities he had over the years.

The biggest reason for me to put as many facts into the public domain as possible is that if the case is solved, no matter who Z may have been, it sets everyone free.

Sean--

When I said that I could see where you are coming from, I was acknowledging that your questions are not agenda based. I had gotten that idea because of your code work, about which you seemed pretty adamant. I hate to sound like a broken record but the best people with regard to descriptions of the killer are the Stine witnesses, not different permutations of Fouke's descriptions.

Jim and I need to speak to Fouke again very soon to clarify some things that he said to us the last time we spoke. I'll try to get more precise answers on these issues. But what level of detail he can recall at this point about specific descriptions that he's given is questionable.

Even if you speak to Pelissetti or Toschi, unless he can produce a report from the time period in which he clearly states that Fouke said he spoke to Z, it may be that he is not recalling their encounter correctly. Why is it that he did not put such an important fact in his own report from the day after the murder!? This may have led to a more intensive investigation into Fouke's encounter at the time. (Or did he cover up for Fouke, since he didn't want him to get into trouble? Or did he embellish the content of the conversation to make himself a more important player on the night of 10/11/69?)

In this context, Fouke's account of how Zelms learned that Fouke had seen a white male is interesting. Fouke did not have some elaborate construct ready for us as to how he informed Zelms that he had spotted someone. If they had gotten out of the car, spoken to Z, and then conspired to hush it all up, one might expect that he'd simply say that he saw the guy and then told Zelms a few seconds later. What Fouke actually said to us when Jim and I questioned him on this point (and without missing a beat) is that he never told Zelms what he had seen because Zelms was sitting in the car next to him and could hear his conversation with Pelissetti about how he had spotted a white male as easily as Pelissetti did! Pretty off-handed for a guy who is hiding something.

Also, in his memo, he doesn't even say that "Zelms saw nothing", as one might expect with Fouke as the ringleader and the rookie keeping his mouth shut and playing along. Why expose Zelms to the heat of an interrogation over what he had seen, instead of both of them agreeing that Zelms had sene nothing, zilch, nada? Fouke left the question open and in doing so pointed the investigators in Zelms' direction! This is either pretty crafty or a sign of innocence of conspiracy.

Mike
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 6:34 pm:   

Mike Rodelli, keep fighting the fight, this thing just might be won.

Vallejo Dave wrote:

No Scott, you're not the only one! Plenty of others are missing the Boat too, by not dealing with the other witness in Presidio Heights that night.

Dave, dead men tell no tales; remember?

Unless there is documented proof somewhere written in Eric Zelms' own words, there's no way we'll ever know Eric Zelms' side of the story. All we have to go on is the information that is available to us, and none of it indicates that anything happened other than exactly what Fouke says happened. Therefore, Don Fouke is a perfectly credible individual who was actually at the scene that night; no amount of second hand information has proven otherwise.

I can tell you that someone 'in the know' is currently in contact with Pelissetti (I'm not mentioning their name because I'm not sure if they'd want me to), and when Pelissetti's story corroborates Don Fouke's, like I know it will, this matter will be put to rest forever. I just thought I'd mention that in order to save you the time of tracking down associates of Eric Zelms for a bunch of information that is essentially useless from the get go.

There's a much more important issue here: The 'teen witnesses' are a crucial key to the murder in Presidio Heights. There are certain agenda driven people, Robert Graysmith being chief among them, that want to downplay the significance of these absolutely wonderful and credible individuals for a very obvious reason: they can exclude certain suspects, namely, Allen, and I'm positive that they'd exclude B. Davis as well, if they haven't already. This is not second/third hand testimony were talking about here, this is among some of the finest direct evidence in this entire case.

Who's prepared to ignore that? I'm not.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 7:08 pm:   

Scott, I'm waiting for that someone to interview Pelissetti too, because we both know just how critical it is to nail this timeline down in order to finally dispose of the "F&Z talking to Z" lie once and for all.

We've spoken about this at length, and from what we already know Pelissetti's story does corroborate Fouke's; the one thing missing is the time factor, and I'm willing to bet, as I've mentioned before, that Pelissetti was at Jackson and Cherry talking to Fouke within a couple of minutes of arriving at the crime scene.

Another thing on the agenda is to contact Coreris and/or Fotinos to ascertain the truth behind the composites, ie, since they apparently commissioned at least the first one, then they should know who the artist was and when he left SFPD (which was apparently in the early 1970's; that should also be verifiable through SFPD). One would imagine they would also be aware of who contributed to the second sketch (we already know from 3 separate sources that only the teens did, but that is apparently not enough to convince some).

You're right, Scott, the (then) teens can exclude certain suspects, but I have been of the opinion for some years now that Z was never turned in to any law enforcement agency as a suspect and was never questioned and, if he was, he was cleared immediately because he didn't fit their profile. While excluding suspects is a good thing and will tell us who Z isn't, it unfortunately won't tell us who Z is.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 7:41 pm:   

Ed, to me it's not so much the timeline that matters. What matters to me is the incredulous inability to fathom that Fouke would spontaneously fabricate a lie directly in front of two other police officers. He has no idea if Zelms and Pelissetti are going to cooperate or not with this hair-brained scheme without somehow forcing them into a quick and makeshift story that he's managed to design in about 2 seconds. See what I'm saying? It's laughable. Fouke admitted that he didn't stop the suspect and bolted off to try and look for him in the most obvious place to search. What's so hard to believe about that, especially in light of the fact that no evidence exists to lead us to believe otherwise?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 9:45 pm:   

There are different aspects of this crime that are important to each of us, and the good thing is, it all helps everyone to get at the truth of the matter. I understand exactly what you mean, Scott, and it makes no sense that Fouke would lie, assuming they stopped and spoke with Z just mere seconds before talking to Pelissetti.

For those unwilling to accept the common sense explanation, a timeline should prove that it cannot have happened; there was simply no time whatsoever.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 6:51 pm:   

I was in PH last night, and I timed several things:

Fouke says he and Zelms were northbound on Presidio when they got the call, so they made a left onto Jackson. They were obviously somewhere between Washington and Jackson, so, starting at the stop sign, I made the left, and, trying not to go too fast (I wasn't in a police car, after all) and stopping at the stop signs, it took 1 minute and 53 seconds to reach 3712/3728 Jackson, where they passed Z. At 2:14, I pulled to a stop after making a left turn on Cherry.

I reset the stopwatch, made a 3 point turn in 20 seconds, and once again observing the speed limit and stop signs, made it into the Presidio and the top of the hill on West Pacific at 1:06. Continuing downhill towards Julius Kahn Park, I passed Maple at 1:18 and made it to Spruce at 1:30, where I pulled off the road just east of the entrance in the wall.

I reset the watch, and eastbound on West Pacific to the first turn took 45 seconds, and I was at Presidio in 1:01.

There was a car parked in the same place Stine's cab was, and starting from the driver's side door, I walked north from Washington and Cherry to Jackson and Cherry in 57 seconds. Out of curiosity, I jogged back to the sidewalk in front of the teens' house in 34 seconds.

I also timed Z's presumed original route: starting at Washington and Maple, I went down the hill on the east sidewalk, made a right on Jackson, made a left and crossed the street when I reached Spruce, and walked down the hill to the entrance in the wall. Total elapsed time was 3:05.

At no time did I run (other than that one leisurely jog) when timing things, and being a civilian with cops patrolling the area, I obeyed the road rules. We can reasonably shave a few seconds off of Fouke & Zelms' time since they were responding to a crime, but other than that, the times I recorded should be fairly close to what actually happened on 10-11-1969.

Walking from Washington and Cherry to Jackson and Cherry, crossing the street and making a right and walking to 3712/3728 Jackson does indeed take about 3 minutes as Z said, and, since passing Z to the stop on Cherry to talk to Pelissetti took approximately 20 seconds, we have a tight timeframe of 3:20 (and it's probably a little less than that, I want to go back to PH and time a few more things during the day; I don't want to be attacked by dogs leaping out of the shadows like what nearly happened last October! I still need to time how long it takes to run from 3712/3728 Jackson to the entrance in the wall at Spruce; assuming Z had his getaway car parked there, he obviously had enough time to escape and be out of sight when Fouke & Zelms were at the top of the hill and heading east on West Pacific).

Pelissetti arrived at the crime scene 60 seconds after Z left the cab. When Fouke spotted him, he was nearly at the corner, so let's give him 55 seconds to walk the same route; we're now at 1:55. Pelissetti apparently got the kids back inside the house to get the story and, once he learned Z was literally a minute or so ahead of him, followed him. The total elapsed time here is unknown at this point, but with only 1:25 left, it's reasonable to assume that getting out of the car, meeting the kids, getting them back inside the house and getting the story easily took up the rest of that time. To assume that once he got the kids back inside they didn't immediately blurt out to him, "Hey, the killer left only a minute before you arrived! He was at the other end of the block when you pulled up!!!" is to rationalize the scenario and twist things to make them fit Z's and Yellow Book's lie about F&Z stopping to talk to him. There was an apparent cab robbery, the victim was seriously injured or dead and the perpetrator was still in the area, so no one was going to be screwing around wasting time. Period.

Another thing to consider is Z's apparent originally planned escape route. It took me 3:05 to walk it, and, assuming he had a car there, Z would have been in it and driving off by 3:30. By 4:15 (actually, somewhat before that, since we can reasonably assume he planned to drive off at a high rate of speed in order to put as much distance between himself and the crime scene as fast as possible), he would have been out of sight around the corner, and by 4:30, he would have been on Presidio (presumably heading towards Lombard to lose himself in traffic; it would be quite busy at that time, unlike PH). If this is what he planned, it was thought out in advance though still quite risky; it's obvious he did not count on the lightning fast response time from SFPD, or he may have reconsidered killing someone in PH.

Last night, PH was almost completely devoid of traffic; we saw only one car and no pedestrians at all, but it was after 11PM. Conditions had to be the same or similar in October 1969, which might explain why Z presumably chose that original escape route: with no one around at 10PM, he didn't expect to be seen by passersby.

Anyway, that's what I have for now; hopefully I can get back to SF soon to time the rest.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Brad
Username: Brad

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 5:01 am:   

Amazing. Nice work, Ed.

I think that is the first time that the chronology and timing of events at PH ever really came clear to me.

The time frames are much smaller than I had ever imagined.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 2:54 pm:   

Brad, that's precisely why Yellow Book almost totally ignored the timing, the teens, Fouke and Pelissetti, why he claimed it was foggy that night when it wasn't, why he was unsure as to where Fouke & Zelms saw Z and why he fabricated various aspects of their sighting, such as claiming that Z was "'lumbering' along in the fog" (Zodiac, p. 85). He needed to keep it as vague as possible, because had he actually bothered to interview the teens, Fouke and Pelissetti, he would have realized that not only did the 4 eyewitnesses have an excellent view of Z, he would have known the man they saw that night was not Allen. He would also have discovered there was absolutely no time for F&Z to stop, call Z over to the car, ask a question, get an answer, then speed off around the corner. Had he bothered to reconstruct the timeline as I have attempted to do, he would known that, but considering his penchant for fabrication, it's obvious that he just couldn't help himself, especially when he claims that the best witnesses' (ie, F&Z) report was top secret and hidden within the files of SFPD (pp. 107-108).

In other words, he had to minimize the importance of the teens to make it seem like they didn't really see Z clearly, fabricate what was needed concerning Fouke, ignore Pelissetti almost completely and then claim that no one can get to the top secret report, which therefore means Allen's more likely to have been Z than anyone else, since no one has been able to dispute anything he had written (until now).

Also, had he actually bothered to interview Fouke, he wouldn't have told us that Fouke and Zelms saw Z at the corner of Jackson and Cherry (Zodiac, p. 85), in front of 3769 Jackson Street (Ultimate Ten Unsolved Crime Mysteries), and walking north on Maple (Zodiac Unmasked, p. 22). Instead of resorting to fabrication, had Yellow Book talked to him, he would have known as we do now that it was actually in front of 3712/3728 Jackson.

It just occurred to me that perhaps the reason Yellow Book originally claimed that F&Z saw Z at Jackson and Cherry was to make it more reasonable for them to stop and talk to him. It was, after all, only one block and a 60 second stroll from the crime scene, so he was probably hoping his readers would think, "Hey, of course they'd stop him, F&Z must have thought he was so close he had to see something! But they were looking for a black and not a white guy, so..."

Basically, what we're looking at here is a con job on Yellow Book's part, IMHO; it never was meant to be an honest attempt to reconstruct the crime and get at the truth.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jim_nelson
Username: Jim_nelson

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Monday, May 29, 2006 - 10:02 pm:   

As you may know, I posted a review of the movie Zodiac in March 2006, about a week before it was released in its limited engagement. I was able to do this because I have a DVD screener’s copy of the movie that was sent to me by M80(R) in Los Angeles, a distributor for Deluxe(R) Media Management in Toronto, Ontario, Canada and THINKFilm(R), who had approached me for a possible movie review since I am the webmaster for Howard’s website.

I am not saying whether the confrontation between Zodiac and the police officers after the Stine attack did or did not take place but it is depicted in this movie. Since Ed did such a precise timeline above, I thought I would do a timeline of the depiction of this event in the movie. The movie is 1 hour 36 minutes and 27 seconds long.

At the 1 hour 26 minute and 14 second mark of the movie there is a sequence of cuts between a police car cruising around and a pedestrian walking down the street.

At 1:26:31 the police car pulls up next to the pedestrian and the officer in the passenger seat says, “Excuse me.”

There is no immediate response.

At 1:26:34 the officer repeats more emphatically, “Excuse me!” and the pedestrian stops walking.

1:26:37 The officer says, “Did you see anybody walking away from that taxicab?”

1:26:42 The pedestrian replies, “What?”

1:26:45 Officer: “Have you seen an adult Negro male in the past few minutes?”

1:26:50 Pedestrian: “Yes.”

1:26:53 Pedestrian: “He went that way.”

1:26:56 Officer: “Thanks. Go home.”

1:26:58 Police car drives off Code 3 (lights and siren.)

Total time between drive-up and drive-off: 27 seconds.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 12:20 am:   

Jim: I have reason to believe the timeline may be even tighter than the 3 minutes and 20 seconds I have assigned to it. I plan to visit SF again to time it to be certain; the walk from the cab to 3712/3728 Jackson may take less than 3 minutes (Z did say "about 3 minutes," and while I've forgotten the precise time, it is about 3 minutes. I didn't get to time everything I wanted to last week when I was there, it was midnight after all).

Anyway, in the 1971 The Zodiac Killer, we have a similar scene: Jerry the postman, aka the Zodiac Killer, just murdered a cab driver named Ted (ie, Stine) and, as he was walking away from the cab, a patrol stopped him.

1:01:17: Police car slows down to talk to Z and pulls up right next to him.

1:01:18: Officer: "Did you see anybody go by here?"

1:01:20: Z: "Yes, a guy just went by waving a gun. He headed across there."

1:01:25: The police drive off as Z laughs.

The total elapsed time in this instance was 8 seconds, but we must consider that this is a movie, not a documentary; what Z claimed happened is different. He said that one of the cops called him over (meaning Z would have had to leave the sidewalk and walk over to the squad car in the street, which would have pulled up not at the curb, but almost certainly at a double-parked distance) "+ asked if I saw any one acting supicisous or strange in the last 5 to 10 min." Z claims he replied, "Yes there was this man who was runnig by waveing a gun," then Fouke & Zelms peeled rubber and went around the corner as he directed them. Such a scenario would easily take 15-20 seconds minimum, not the 8 as depicted in the 1971 movie.

As tight as the timeline is (and there's the distinct possibility it may be even less than 3:20), even the 8 second scenario can't fit in.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jim_nelson
Username: Jim_nelson

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 1:15 am:   

Ed: Again, I am not saying whether this happened or not. But it was in the movie - right or wrong.

Not to be contentious, but if someone were only a couple of feet away from you and looking away from you and you wanted to speak to that person you would have to address that person in some manner to get them to respond to you. That could be considered “calling them over” to talk to you. Zodiac never said he went into the street to talk to the officer. He could have been just a few feet away on the sidewalk and was “called over” to the curb. Or not . . . .
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Howard_davis
Username: Howard_davis

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 10:50 am:   

"...even an 8 second scenario can't fit in."Wow!!!
That IS tighter than Jack Benny.LOL
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 1:58 pm:   

Ed,
With regard to the timing..are you working from the times recorded on the report sheets?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 2:10 pm:   

Howard, Jim: 3:20 is the absolute max, and I suspect with good reason that it was even less than that, perhaps by as much as 30 seconds. In order to believe that Z was actually being truthful and everyone else is lying, one must therefore believe that a short conversation took place, but that he was not being truthful about the way he described it (I've timed it here at home a few times, and it takes a minimum of 15 seconds). Either he was being truthful, or he wasn't. The facts as we know them from the people who were actually there (other than that murderer, Z) support the latter, not the former, so 15 seconds (or even 8) simply can't fit.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 2:20 pm:   

Sean, I'm going by what I personally timed myself (how else is anyone going to do it?) and the facts as we know them: it takes roughly 3 minutes to walk from the cab to 3712/3728 Jackson, it takes 57 seconds (OK, so I rounded off to a minute) to walk from the cab to Cherry and Jackson, it takes 21 seconds (I rounded off to 20) to drive from Maple and Jackson to make a left on Cherry and stop by the corner, and we know from the teen witnesses that Z was still in sight at the other end of the block when Pelissetti arrived (thanks to the research of Mike Rodelli and Jim Dean, who personally spoke to them).

When all that is put together, and going by a max of 3:20 for the entire scenario, there is simply no time for the alleged conversation to have taken place. Period. And if Pelissetti spent less than 1:25 there (which is more than probable, since a murder had just happened and the killer was still in the area, so you know the cops are not going to be screwing around for any length of time), the 3:20 timeline becomes even shorter.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_cole
Username: Mike_cole

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 3:02 pm:   

Ed, you wrote:

"...so 15 seconds (or even 8) simply can't fit."

The simple fact of the matter is that you do NOT know the timeline to an accuracy of 15 (let alone 8) seconds.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Howard_davis
Username: Howard_davis

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 4:36 pm:   

And I,Howard Davis believes it not!

No one had a Swiss stop watch that night checking each and every person and their exact positions and travel points from A to B er,Z.
It is absolutely impossible NOT to have had a few seconds within this 'created' timeline.

Ed,you know I agree with most of your propositions and posts and have openly boasted of your case knowledge MANY times and even defended you when you were attacked-not that you needed it-but not allowing for a few creepy seconds when many know that it is POSSIBLE here is way,way beyond what one can accept.
My engineer included!He is with me on this one as he was on the LB deal,but if he doesn't agree he will say so in no uncertain terms.He is a consumate professionally trained perfectionist.We constantly wrangle over the tiniest of details as we must.
He sees a few seconds, at least, for a gap.He takes no stand on Z talking to anyone that night.

Forget if Z spoke to Zelms(I have never said he spoke to Fouke-F can say he never spoke to Z and I accept that!),but I am looking at the whole time frame and making a few seconds for a gap for whatever purpose.
If there is just a 30-60 second gap we have our time to speak to Jerry Garcia for that matter.LOL.

As given,EACH and every person was NOT independently timed!One can fit a few seconds in there for ANY kind of lag time or for any reason.

I can walk a certain stride for a minute or so and then I can increase it thus second reduce the time I take to arrive at a certain point.Those seconds add up as you point out!

F did not know nor could he when it came to the exact speed EVERY second he was travelling that night.
Pelissetti was NOT timing his every move from point to point.At best he could only approximate them and by doing so leave a little gap in the whole scenario.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 6:06 pm:   

Actually, Mike, I know the timing well enough to understand that the 15-20 seconds for Z's alleged scenario cannot fit; if one chooses to believe the words of a murderer, then one better believe them all instead of rationalizing them away to fit the conversation in to the known timeline, such as saying, "Well, maybe they didn't actually stop, maybe they just slowed down, and by him calling over, he never actually went over to the car..." The only unknown at this point is Pelissetti's timing from arrival to when he started walking north on Cherry. To believe that he putzed around for more than even a minute is pure rationalization; based on common sense and the facts as we know them thus far, the 1:25 window I have assigned to Pelissetti is extremely generous, and you and I both know that it had to be less than that. Thus, the 3:20 timeline is even tighter, which makes the alleged stop and Z's scenario even more absurd (notwithstanding an 8 second Hollyweird version that used completely different dialogue).

As Mike Butterfield recently pointed out in chat, if something as momentous as Fouke & Zelms stopping Z really happened that night, why did he not harp on it in his 10-13-1969 letter? Why did he wait 29 days before he even bothered to mention it? That should indicate that it was an afterthought of his, something he could say (based on the fact that he was passed by a squad car) that would leave everyone guessing about what really happened.

The fact is, Z is a liar, the stop never happened, and Yellow Book, who is known to play fast and loose with the facts, does little in the way of actual research, and fabricates whatever he wants to just to make the story more exciting, simply perpetuated the lie.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 6:11 pm:   

"Why did he wait 29 days before he even bothered to mention it?"

I believe Z wrote the Stine letter prior to the murder and mailed it immediately after. Therefore, he couldn't have mentioned the police encounter or corrected the actual location of the murder.

Of course, that's another thread and doesn't help much with the mess of F&Z.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 6:13 pm:   

Howard, I understand what you're saying, but it still doesn't add up the way I understand the facts. We know Z didn't run (at least, not before F&Z drove by him), the timing is so tight that 15 seconds can't be shoehorned in, Fouke has consistently denied that such a stop ever happened, and the only other person alive who was there tells a different story. I'm curious, but why should the word of a murderer be believed over that of a decorated officer and the facts as we know them?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Howard_davis
Username: Howard_davis

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 6:41 pm:   

Ed,
This is the error-that we HAVE to choose between a murderer and a police officer as to the truth of an event as BOTH have a reason/s to lie (Z had less to 'lose')and since both are human beings then both or either one could lie or tell the truth.

Many officers over the years have covered up an event and later the criminal it was found actually was telling the truth!
Many oficers have told the truth about a situaton and it was he criminal who lied.

We don't say criminals always lie and police always tell the truth as history has shown this is not so.

Your only basis for rejection or acceptance is when all the facts from all quarters has been revealed.
Until then we don't say 'I have to or want to believe him because he is a police officer and the other man is a crook so I know he lied.'
Again, police history...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_cole
Username: Mike_cole

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 9:01 pm:   

"It is the mark of an educated mind to rest satisfied with the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits and not to seek exactness where only an approximation is possible."

Aristotle
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 10:00 pm:   

Howard, I've changed my position 180º on Fouke as you know, because there are no factual reasons on which to base an opinion that he's lying. On the other hand, someone like Z who has no problem taking others' lives therefore would have no problem doing something lesser, like lying. Ted Bundy is an excellent example of this: he was not only a prolific serial killer, he lied as easily as he breathed and he was also a burglar.

Mike: we're dealing with a window of 200 seconds here, and possibly closer to 175 seconds. That's about as exact as one can get. No approximation necessary.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Douglas_oswell
Username: Douglas_oswell

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 1:08 am:   

I think the point has been established that if they'd actually called him over and talked to him they'd have seen blood on his clothing.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 1:58 am:   

Doug, unfortunately it's become a "he said-she said" thing, where we have the one surviving cop who was there denying the stop ever happened, and a serial killer and the widow of the other cop (who was not there to see what her husband did or did not do) saying it did happen.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Douglas_oswell
Username: Douglas_oswell

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 2:14 am:   

True, but someone's account is incorrect, and I think the weight of the evidence favors Fouke.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bucko
Username: Bucko

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, June 02, 2006 - 5:41 am:   

I had done a few tests with fake blood a while back, and it really is hard to see on certain types and color of clothing, especially under certain lighting conditions.

Since the officers had no reason to suspect a white male and were in a hurry to help nab the shooter, I doubt they paid much attention to anything except getting some quick information once his face was identified as being white. In fact, I would expect they looked at his face first for this reason. Whether a verbal encounter actually took place is another story.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Wednesday, June 07, 2006 - 2:14 am:   

I timed things again tonight in PH, and, once again, it took 57 seconds to walk from Washington & Cherry to Jackson & Cherry. It took 50 seconds when I reached a point roughly one car length from the corner (so this would be where Fouke & Zelms pulled up when they spotted Pelissetti).

I crossed the street, made a right, and headed down the incline towards Maple. I passed 3728 Jackson at 2:04 (yes, that's correct, it was only 2 minutes later and not 3) and passed 3712 at 2:08. I reached the northwest corner of Jackson & Maple at 2:25. There was a party on the 3700 block of Jackson tonight (complete with valet parking), and so I didn't want them to see me walking back and forth and timing things; all I needed was for them to think I was acting suspicious and call 911!

I later timed myself running from 3712 Jackson, across Maple and along the 3600 block of Jackson to Spruce and then down the hill to the entrance in the wall to West Pacific: I arrived at the northwest corner of Jackson & Spruce at 0:55 and was at West Pacific at 1:20.

Getting back to Pelissetti, he related during the course of two interviews in one week to Mike Butterfield that he arrived at Washington & Cherry 2-3 minutes after receiving the call. The teens reported that Z was still in sight at the other end of the block (ie, at Jackson & Cherry) when Pelissetti arrived; that means Z was only 57 seconds ahead of him. Z crossed the street and made a right on the north sidewalk on the 3700 block of Jackson.

Meanwhile, the teens were coming out of the house and heading towards the cab. Pelissetti pushed them back to the house, got a brief description and was told Z walked north on Cherry, and then headed for the cab. Stine was obviously dead, and he told Frank Peda to watch the cab while he radioed in the amended description.

In his own words, he "hightailed" it up Cherry, "flashlighting" the bushes. He estimated it was 45-60 seconds after arriving at the crime scene that he was wallking up Cherry after Z. The time is now 1:42 to 1:57 after Z left (and the timing suggests the former, not the latter, is correct, as explained below). When he arrived at Jackson & Cherry, he encountered Fouke & Zelms.

At roughly 2:00, Z spotted Fouke & Zelms and started walking in a halting manner; obviously, he hadn't expected to encounter the cops so fast. He made a sudden turn and walked up the steps of either 3728 or 3712 Jackson as Fouke & Zelms drove by; assuming he walked up the steps of 3712, the time is now 2:08.

Fouke & Zelms drove up the grade and spotted Pelissetti nearly at the corner of Jackson & Cherry, make a left, pulled up to the curb and had a brief conversation. The time is now 2:29 (I had previously timed the drive along the block and the left turn at 21 seconds).

Going by Pelissetti's time, if he started walking north on Cherry at 1:42, 50 seconds later brings us to 2:32. The difference between Fouke & Zelms' time of 2:29 and Pelissetti's 2:32 is negligible.

Of course, the naysayers will now question the timing, and assuming roughly 20 seconds for the scenario as outlined on page 3 of Z's 11-9-1969 letter, Fouke & Zelms's time becomes 2:49. If Pelissetti took 60 and not 45 seconds, his time now becomes 2:47, which is barely enough time for a stop and a brief conversation to have occurred.

However, this is ignoring some very important and basic facts (and plain common sense): Fouke & Zelms were still looking for a black and not a white suspect. They were in a predominantly white neighborhood. Under these circumstances, and assuming they stopped Z, they would not have asked what Z claims they did: "Did you see anyone acting suspicious or strange in the last 5 to 10 minutes?" What they would have asked was, "Hey buddy, you see a black guy run by here?" The fact that Z did not report that is one indication that his scenario is a lie; he could not possibly have known they were looking for a black guy at the time unless they actually stopped him and asked. And that's why he didn't mention it but instead came up with something generic; the stop did not happen.

Furthermore, assuming Fouke & Zelms stopped Z, why then did he not mention it in the very next letter he wrote that very night? Instead, Z rambles on about "The S.F. police could have caught me last night if they had searched the park properly..." Excuse me? IF we believe Z's lie about the stop, then why did he say something so ridiculous? Why didn't he say, "The S.F. police had me last night, but they just let me go because they told me they were looking for a black and not a white man!" The facts and common sense must prevail here; Z could not have been stopped, or he would have mentioned that mistake immediately rather than waiting 29 days after the fact to mention it in passing (and even then, it's on page 3! If something as monumental as 2 cops stopping Z had truly happened, why did it not merit page 1 of his letter?).

BTW, Z had to have written the 10-13-1969 letter that night, because if he had written it at any time after that, he would have known from the papers that he murdered Stine at Cherry, and the hi-res scan of the 10-13-1969 letter shows what might be Stine's blood near the bottom, which could only have come from the bloody swatch of his shirt placed in contact with the letter before the blood completely dried. When Z wrote that letter is another topic for discussion (ie, before or after the murder), but it bears repeating that, since the facts indicate he wrote it so soon after the murder that Stine's blood had not yet dried but before he read the paper, something as incredible as SFPD calling him over to their car and talking to him while he was covered in blood and then letting him go did not merit pen time from Z for 29 days? Common sense dictates otherwise; Fouke & Zelms spotted Z, saw he was a white guy, and just kept on going. Z took that factual incident and embellished it with a lie about a stop that never happened.

That the man they saw was Z cannot be doubted; he did accurately describe the circumstances, such as walking downhill, being a block and a half away from the park and seeing 2 cops. He also wrote that they drove around a corner, which is precisely what Fouke did, although not under Z's direction as he claimed. Had he run north on Maple to escape as Fouke thought cannot have happened, because Z would not have known that Fouke and Zelms did in fact round a corner. He had to have run down the 3600 block of Jackson to Spruce and saw the turn while looking over his shoulder to see if they were following him.

We must also bear in mind that, other than the story in the 11-12-1969 Chronicle that published Z's lie about the stop, the very next time we hear about it is in April 1986 in that infamous yellow book. The source for that story is Yellow Book himself, and he had to have gotten it from Dave Toschi (otherwise, how would Yellow Book have known Fouke's name?). We also have Z and now Diane Zelms telling the same story, and 3 of the 4 are known to have credibility problems. That does not bode well for the veracity of the story, especially when we consider the fact that, of the 4 who are telling that different story, only 1 of them was actually there, and one is forced to wonder why anyone would accept on blind faith the word of a murderer. Fouke, Pelissetti and the 3 teens, who were all there that night, all tell the same story, and it is not what Z, Yellow Book, Toschi, and now Diane Zelms are telling. Thus, Z is shown to be the liar.

In essence, the events of those few minutes unfolded like this: Fouke, Zelms and Pelissetti all respond to the call that there's a crime in progress at Washington & Cherry. Z walks away from the crime scene north along Cherry, and Pelissetti arrives a minute later. Z crosses Jackson, makes a right and walks down the hill, only to be passed a minute later by Fouke & Zelms, who are travelling west and in the opposite direction. They spot him, slow down, and drive past, since they are looking for a black and not a white man. Twenty seconds later, Fouke spots Pelissetti, who is almost at Jackson, and he makes a left and pulls up to talk to him. Fouke is informed that the suspect is white and not black, and he realizes that they passed the suspect not even a minute before. Thinking that the perp would logically have escaped north on Maple, Fouke makes a 3 point turn and heads towards the Presidio, hoping to catch the perp in his headlights, but Z had vanished.

The stories the teen witnesses and Fouke told Mike Rodelli and Jim Dean, and what Pelissetti has related recently to Mike Butterfield, are all consistent and all corroborate each other (as well has fill in the blanks on some critical factors), which speaks volumes concerning the veracity of these people. The facts are clear and common sense tells us that Officers Fouke and Zelms cannot have stopped Z as he claimed.

Many thanks go to Mike Butterfield, Scott Bullock and Mike Rodelli for keeping the ball rolling and getting the much needed interviews from the witnesses who were actually there the night the Zodiac murdered Paul Stine.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Deoxys
Username: Deoxys

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Wednesday, June 07, 2006 - 9:32 am:   

Nice work, Ed! It is truly amazing how close the legend of Zodiac came to ending on Jackson St. 10/11/69.

The description of events sounds very reasonable to me. It would be really interesting for someone to create an animated version of the events based on Ed's timeline to bring the scene "to life".
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_cole
Username: Mike_cole

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Wednesday, June 07, 2006 - 10:20 am:   

Ed,

"The teens reported that Z was still in sight at the other end of the block (ie, at Jackson & Cherry) when Pelissetti arrived..."

What's the source on this?

Is Mike Butterfield going to make the information gathered from his interviews with Pelissetti available?

Does Pelissetti confirm that he spoke to Fouke & Zelms at the corner Jackson & Cherry?

How does Pelissetti account for the statement he made on Cold Case Files: "The other unit stopped somebody..." (or something close to that)?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Wednesday, June 07, 2006 - 7:29 pm:   

Mike, that comes from Mike Rodelli and Jim Dean (who spoke to the then teens himself). It was posted some months back before the board got hacked.

Mike B took extensive notes, and while he hasn't specifically mentioned it to me, I would imagine he will post (some of) what he has. Mike B is the best person to talk to about that, however.

Pelissetti confirms that he saw Fouke & Zelms at Jackson & Cherry. However, he deferred to Fouke's recollection, who said they actually spoke. Regardless, whether they spoke or not, they still arrived at Jackson & Cherry about the same time.

As to his statement on Cold Case Files, he would appear to have been quoting Yellow Book. Mike B is the best one to answer this, although I'll ask him next time we chat and get the answers. One thing to keep in mind, however, is the timed scenario I outlined does not allow for a stop unless one starts to rationalize everything I spoke about, especially Z's own writings on the matter.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Friday, June 09, 2006 - 6:16 pm:   

Hmm... I thought this would have sparked more interest...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, June 09, 2006 - 8:06 pm:   

What interest is there to spark, Ed? It's taken us (thank you for crediting me!) many months to quash the "World Exclusive" interview with Diane Zelms. This isn't to say that she's not a wonderful woman or not speaking truthfully, at least, as truthfully as one can who wasn't actually there. It just shows that the events that transpired that night could not have happened the way she stated them.

The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of Fouke's version of events. Even Pelissetti recently deferred to Fouke's version of events saying, in effect, that if Fouke said it didn't happen then it didn't happen. And Pelissetti, ironically enough, went from being the RO at the Stine crime scene to being tasked with the Z case as a homicide investigator later in his career! He also made mention of an obvious fact that many seemingly want to ignore: That Fouke did the right thing by not wasting time on a subject that didn't fit the description knowing full-well that THE PERP of the cabbie murder was still, MOST DEFINITELY, in the general vicinity, and was black, not white.

Fouke slowed down long enough to determine if the man he saw matched the broadcast description or not and, when he didn't, he stayed in pursuit. When he got the amended description he did exactly as he should have by searching the very area that he felt the subject he'd seen would be heading. This isn't a conspiracy in play here; it's just plain old common sense. At least, it's rational enough that no other point of skepticism has been substantial enough to make one believe otherwise.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Friday, June 09, 2006 - 8:47 pm:   

I figured there'd be a firestorm of controversy and protests and arguments in favor of Z's and Yellow Book's version of events (despite the fact that both have very little in the way of credibility; Z was credible only when it suited him, as we know).

I was not foolish enough to state that there was absolutely no possibility of a stop and short conversation taking place, since the timeline does in fact allow a 15 to 20 second stop (based on Pelissetti's admission that it took him 45 to 60 seconds to starting walking up Cherry). However, the preponderance of evidence and basic common sense tells us that it simply could not have happened and that Z embellished the encounter with a lie. Yellow Book and Toschi have credibility problems, as we all know, and one has to wonder why Diane Zelms is telling the story she is (wishful thinking after reading the yellow book that has become a "real" memory after 20 years? Who knows...).

All I know is that the truth is something that Yellow Book should have attempted to reconstruct 20 years ago instead of minimizing the importance of all of the people who were actually there that night and emphasizing the lies of a sick, cold-blooded killer.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_cole
Username: Mike_cole

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Friday, June 09, 2006 - 10:28 pm:   

Ed, you wrote:

"I was not foolish enough to state that there was absolutely no possibility of a stop and short conversation taking place, since the timeline does in fact allow a 15 to 20 second stop"

Really? I guess when you wrote: "...the stop did not happen" and "the facts are clear and common sense tells us that Officers Fouke and Zelms cannot have stopped Z as he claimed," I missed the part where you were qualifying your statements.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_cole
Username: Mike_cole

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Friday, June 09, 2006 - 11:15 pm:   

Ed, you wrote:

"I thought this would have sparked more interest..."

What's the point, really?

I've accepted the following. (1) You are going to continue to delude yourself with the idea that you have the timeline nailed down to an impossible degree of accuracy. (2) Borrowing a page from RG, both you and Scott are going to continue to state your opinions as fact regarding this matter. (3) Scott is going to continue to look for opportunities to bash Howard for having committed the sin of finding and talking to Diane Zelms. (4) Scott is going to continue to bash anyone who chooses to believe a subset of law-enforcement officers other than the one he's declared acceptable. (5) Both of you will continue to minimize the aspects of the scenario that are problematic with respect to your chosen conclusion.

IMO, both you and Scott have compromised objectivity on this issue. So, personally, I view discussion with you on this matter as a waste of time...

Mike Butterfield's interview is interesting. But he's not about to post the information here on the MB. And hearing what you choose to report regarding your interpretation of Mike's interpretation of Pelissetti's words is ... mildly intriguing at best.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 12:40 am:   

Mike, those statements are not absolutes. They are opinions based on fact. I cannot state with absolute certainty one thing or the other because I was not there to observe events.

Mike, it is you who are deluded if you believe that a specific set of events that occurred in less than 3 minutes that have also been corroborated independently by at least 4 different people (3 of whom were there at the time) cannot be accurate. If you believe that to be impossible, then I suggest you come out to SF, time everything yourself, and use common sense while you do so (ie, Z was not leisurely strolling away and smelling the flowers but making a determined effort to escape).

My opinions are based on fact. On hard facts. The story you have apparently chosen to believe is based on a non-credible murderer and a non-credible "true-crime" writer who is nothing of the sort, but has been proven time and again to have fabricated whatever he wants to prove his case and was even recently sued for plagiarism. I am really curious as to why you should choose to place any sort of confidence in anything those two people have to say?

As far as Diane Zelms goes, we know nothing about her other than what Howard has posted, and so I can't comment on her other than her story sounds like it came right out of the yellow book with some minor embellishments.

Seems like your statement about Scott in your 4th point indicates that you've chosen to believe that all cops are bad and they all lie, and that Fouke is an excellent example of how cops can't be trusted to tell the truth but serial killers can. Once again, your belief seems to be founded on the writings of one author who has been proven to be dishonest in everything he writes and says about this case. I think you have it bass-ackwards, to be quite honest.

I have no idea what aspects of the scenario you believe Scott and I have minimized. And your apparent continued belief in the words of a serial killer and a political cartoonist whose investigation into this case has been discredited over the testimony of the people who were actually there the night Stine was murdered and witnessed the events we're investigating and the person who has actually bothered to visit the crime scene dozens of times to closely examine all aspects of the scenario shows that your objectivity has been thoroughly compromised.

You are correct. Continued discussion with you on this subject is a waste of time, since your mind is made up and you're not interested in looking at the facts objectively. But that's OK, we're all entitled to our opinions, whether they're based on facts or on the words of murderers and noncredible wannabe true crime writers. To each their own. I'll stick to the facts, thank you very much.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Douglas_oswell
Username: Douglas_oswell

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 1:20 am:   

I recall reading a script version of Mel Brooks's "Young Frankenstein" many years ago, which contained a line that I never saw in the movie. Frankenstein, lecturing a group of medical students, prefaces a demonstration by inquiring "Do I lie?" The inference is that since no one is willing to impugn the great man's integrity, everything he says must by default be true. Of course the satire is obvious here: Frankenstein is a scientist, and scientists never make such assumptions; everything must be demonstrable.

That's what we're getting here. In lieu of rational argumentation, some people insist on presenting the "would so-and-so lie?" approach. In fact, some people are liars, and some people relay falsehoods and mistaken impressions that they honestly believe to be the truth.

Ed is in the right here, so far as I'm concerned, because he's made the effort to actually put his notions to the test. And it's disingenuous to try to contradict his findings on the basis that he claimed he possessed the absolute truth on the matter. The findings speak for themselves, no matter how Ed might interpret them, or what particular words he might have let slip in presenting them. If it were only up to me, I'd put it this way: "in light of the facts, it is highly unlikely that Zodiac spoke to the police."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_cole
Username: Mike_cole

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 7:30 am:   

Ed wrote:

"Seems like your statement about Scott in your 4th point indicates that you've chosen to believe that all cops are bad and they all lie, and that Fouke is an excellent example of how cops can't be trusted to tell the truth but serial killers can."

You clearly do not understand the statement. Don't misinterpret it and put words in my mouth.

"I have no idea what aspects of the scenario you believe Scott and I have minimized."

Unfortunate...

"...since your mind is made up and you're not interested in looking at the facts objectively."

If you would have bothered to pay attention, you would know that my position has always been that it's a "reasonable possibility" that the encounter happened. Not that it did happen. Not that it did not happen. You're the one that has made up your mind. So, please, spare me the lecture.

Anyway, you implicitly asked the question. I was just providing my perspective on the answer.

BTW, based on the chat the other night, I infer that your comments are equally applicable to Mike Kelleher given that he believes the encounter did happen.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Douglas_oswell
Username: Douglas_oswell

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 8:11 am:   

Does Kelleher lie?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 9:56 am:   

Mike Kelleher's opinion is based on what he believes to be the facts, same as everyone else. Perhaps he's not aware of the work that's been done recently, but considering the known facts, I don't even consider it a very likely or even reasonable possibility, especially when you consider that, to assume such a position, you must give credence to the words of a discredited political cartoonist who was sued for plagiarism and a serial killer. You really need to assess your priorities here.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Douglas_oswell
Username: Douglas_oswell

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 10:07 am:   

Does Aristotle lie?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 3:26 pm:   

Mike Cole:

If leaning in the direction of where the facts point is a loss of objectivity, then how are we to characterize someone such as yourself who hasn't bothered to investigate the facts at all? Sure, it's possible that Fouke is lying about speaking to the Zodiac, virtually anything is possible, but that's not where the facts are pointing the more that some of us continue to dig into this thing. Do you care to comment on what leads you to believe that there is a "reasonable possibility" that Fouke spoke to the Zodiac?

You wrote:

"Scott is going to continue to bash anyone who chooses to believe a subset of law-enforcement officers other than the one he's declared acceptable."

I've never done that, not even once. Other than Toschi, what law enforcement officer have I ever said shouldn't be believed? When have I ever said that cops are incapable of lying? What it comes down to is this, Mike Cole: You are a pseudo-intellectual who hasn't taken the time to examine this aspect of the case closely enough to have developed an informed opinion.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_cole
Username: Mike_cole

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 10:19 am:   

Scott wrote:

"You are a pseudo-intellectual..."

Argument by naming calling. Why am I not surprised?

"...who hasn't taken the time to examine this aspect of the case closely enough to have developed an informed opinion."

Anyone who has paid attention to my postings on this subject over the course of the last year knows that your statement is simply false. Furthermore, I know that you know it is false. Therefore, I have no choice but to conclude that you have intentionally chosen to mischaracterize what you know to be the truth simply because you don't like my opinion.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 11:49 am:   

Ed,
You wrote;- "Pelissetti confirms that he saw Fouke and Zelms at Jackson and Cherry. However, he deferred to Fouke's recollection, who said they actually spoke".

Sorry Ed, just double checking...that means that Pellisetti does not remember if he spoke to Fouke at that time, correct?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 12:25 pm:   

Mike, you really need to learn the difference between name calling and accurate, descriptive terminology.

Furthermore, it's not that I don't like your opinion, but rather that the evidence dictates that your opinion is false.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 1:04 pm:   

Hey, I am a pseudo intellectual, and I like to study the case.---I don't have an agenda and I am not a liar! Furthermore, I was in Presidio Heights and Pacific Heights at the time in question, and I don't appreciate "Oswellian Theory" being rammed down my throat. This whole thing sounds like a Keystone Kops episode.

Scott, why do you think they are muddying the Big Picture?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Douglas_oswell
Username: Douglas_oswell

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 1:06 pm:   

Oh, something's being rammed down your throat, Dave, but I don't think it's Oswellian Theory.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_cole
Username: Mike_cole

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 2:13 pm:   

"Mike, you really need to learn the difference between name calling and accurate, descriptive terminology."

I know the difference, Scott; and so do you. I'll let others judge for themselves as to what your intentions were...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_cole
Username: Mike_cole

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 2:23 pm:   

Ed wrote:

"What they would have asked was, 'Hey buddy, you see a black guy run by here?'"

Absolutely wrong. Apart from avoiding other potential problems, asking a general question while withholding certain specific details enables the person asking the question to better gauge the authenticity and relevancy of the answer.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_cole
Username: Mike_cole

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 2:49 pm:   

Ed wrote:

"Mike Kelleher's opinion is based on what he believes to be the facts, same as everyone else. Perhaps he's not aware of the work that's been done recently, but considering the known facts, I don't even consider it a very likely or even reasonable possibility..."

In other words, if Mike Kelleher only knew what you knew, then he would clearly conclude what you've concluded... Okay...

"You really need to assess your priorities here."

Every time you encounter a quote that doesn't fit with you conclusion, you dismiss it by saying: "Well, So-and-so must have read Graysmith's 'Zodiac'. That's why he/she is saying that." Then you assert that your conclusion is the only one that is "reasonably possible". And I need to re-assess my priorities...

"I don't even consider it a very likely or even reasonable possibility, especially when you consider that, to assume such a position, you must give credence to the words of a discredited political cartoonist who was sued for plagiarism and a serial killer."

Ed, you are continually getting hung up on this point. RG has issues - no question. However, much of what he has written is factually correct. For some parts of his book, I can read it and know exactly from which reports he is extracting the information. To dismiss facts (that don't fit your conclusion, BTW) simply because the source is RG is analytically flawed. The information represents data points. They should be considered in conjunction with all other data points. No more. No less. A related argument can be made for Z.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 3:35 pm:   

Somehow I doubt if this is the Final Chapter!

Doug, your ideas on society continue to amaze me. Is Archie Bunker your hero?----Were you abused as a child? Come on, tell all. I think maybe someone came in the back door with you!----------You seem to be adept at labeling other people, and no, I won't stoop to your level.

Gee--I can't wait to read your book! BTW, are you paying to have it published yourself? Or is Doubleday picking it up?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

George
Username: George

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 3:50 pm:   

Well, well. The avenging angel flits about the board making personal attacks, yet again.

What it comes down to, Mike Cole, is who to believe. It's not complicated. I'll take Fouke's words over those of a serial killer, you won't. Big deal. I'll credit a fairly professionally conducted interview over a shoddy, desperate one. You won't. So what? Try to move past this, provided your ego allows you to do so.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_cole
Username: Mike_cole

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 10:28 pm:   

George wrote:

"Well, well. The avenging angel flits about the board making personal attacks, yet again."

I'm having a little trouble understanding what you're trying to say... Based on your later comments, I'm inferring that I am the "avenging angel" who is "making personal attacks, yet again". George, please refer me to the posts that you consider to be "personal attacks".

"I'll credit a fairly professionally conducted interview over a shoddy, desperate one."

The "shoddy, desperate" interview is which one - Howard's interview of Diane Zelms? Personally, I think that's a harsh way to characterize Howard's contribution. I guess what they say is true: no good deed goes unpunished... Of course, if you want to take it upon yourself to find Diane Zelms and conduct a "professional" interview, I would look forward to the results.

"Try to move past this, provided your ego allows you to do so."

Oh, the irony of it all...

So, because I refuse to join the crowd that is asserting "My conclusion is the only reasonably possible conclusion," I am being egotistical. I'm not sure how to respond except to say: that doesn't make sense to me and your entitled to your opinion...

To be honest George, prior to your post I would have thought that you would be more open minded. My mistake...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_cole
Username: Mike_cole

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 10:49 pm:   

Ed wrote:

"Furthermore, assuming Fouke & Zelms stopped Z, why then did he not mention it in the very next letter he wrote that very night? Instead, Z rambles on about 'The S.F. police could have caught me last night if they had searched the park properly...' Excuse me? IF we believe Z's lie about the stop, then why did he say something so ridiculous? Why didn't he say, "The S.F. police had me last night, but they just let me go because they told me they were looking for a black and not a white man!" The facts and common sense must prevail here; Z could not have been stopped, or he would have mentioned that mistake immediately rather than waiting 29 days after the fact to mention it in passing (and even then, it's on page 3! If something as monumental as 2 cops stopping Z had truly happened, why did it not merit page 1 of his letter?)."

See prior post for "black man vs. white man" issue...

Under your scenario, the police drove right by Z, slowed down, looked right at him and let him go, all minutes after the murder... Z had no way of knowing that the initial description was incorrect. As far as he knew, the police were just being incompetent. Why didn't he mention this in his Stine letter? Whatever your answer is, it's equally applicable to your question... The scenario changes relatively little with the exchange of a few words.

IMO, the likely reason Z did not mention the incident is that he had an expectation that SFPD would level with the public. He was looking forward to SFPD having to admit that two of their officers witnessed him (conversation aside, for the moment) leaving the crime scene. This idea is completely consistent with the beginning of the bus-bomb letter...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_cole
Username: Mike_cole

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 11:02 pm:   

Ed,

When Pelissetti says that he'll "defer" to Fouke regarding whether or not they talked, it does not constitute corroboration. At best, it's "non-contradiction". Furthermore, if Pelissetti was aware of Fouke's answer at the time that he "deferred", it's fairly clear that one of two scenarios is true - either: (a) Pelissetti does not remember or (b) he remembers it differently but does not want to contradict Fouke. Otherwise, Pelissetti would simply agree with Fouke.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

George
Username: George

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 12:04 am:   

Mike C, thanks for the heads-up about my being entitled to an opinion.

I also thought you'd be more open-minded when someone who disagrees with you, such as Kelleher during Wednesday's chat. Guess I was wrong as well. I never realized you were threatened by him. A distinguished, objective professional criminalist would never have a chance here.

A good while back, someone made a nice point that regardless of whether or not a conversation twixt Z and the cops occurred is, in the long run, a minor point as concerns identifying him. A very good point but how about ninety-one more posts instead?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_cole
Username: Mike_cole

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 12:23 am:   

"I also thought you'd be more open-minded when someone who disagrees with you, such as Kelleher during Wednesday's chat. Guess I was wrong as well. I never realized you were threatened by him. A distinguished, objective professional criminalist would never have a chance here."

I don't feel threatened by Kelleher. I agree with him on this issue. I was there in the chat room. I asked him several questions and he was kind enough to respond to all of them. Truth be known, I disagree with him on a lot of other issues; but so what. I've never been disrespectful in my disagreement. I own his book. I've read it twice and I consider it a valuable resource. So George, what's your point?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 12:34 am:   

Sean: yes, Pelissetti did not specifically recall speaking to Fouke & Zelms, which is why he deferred to Fouke's recollection. In fact, he encountered F&Z a second time, apparently at Washington & Maple some minutes after their first encounter at Jackson & Cherry.

Mike, you are rationalizing in order to explain your belief in Z's lie about the stop and how it could be a possibility. And despite knowing that the discredited political cartoonist has severe credibility problems, you are hung up on the belief that he may be correct on this single point. The fact is, Yellow Book was not there that night, he had to have gotten his information about it from Toschi, who was also not there at the time (although he arrived later), you have put faith in the words of Diane Zelms, who was also not there that night, and you believe the words of a serial killer who also has severe credibility problems.

On the other hand, you have dismissed out of hand the words of Pelissetti, who was there, Fouke, who not only was there but has consistently denied stopping and talking to Z, and the teens, who witnessed the crime and have helped put things in perspective.

Add to that your dismissal of Z's known writings with some irrational ramblings about some expectation you believe Z to have had. Common sense tells us precisely the opposite (assuming this stop happened): why would Z claim "SFPD could have caught me last night if they searched the park properly..." when they actually did have him covered in blood and simply let him go? Sorry, Mike, but your opinion makes no sense whatsoever in light of the facts and common sense.

Consider your position: you believe this alleged stop is a "reasonable possibility" based only on the word of a noncredible serial killer and 3 others who were not there, while at the same time totally ignoring the words of the people who were there. You have placed yourself in a very subjective and totally noncredible position, no matter how you choose to look at it.

Oh, and Mike: why don't you ask Mike Kelleher what he thinks? It's not like we've kept him up to speed on this scenario.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_cole
Username: Mike_cole

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 12:59 am:   

Something about the dynamic of this MB has taken a turn for the worse in the last year or so...

I guess I should have known better than to get drawn into this discussion. I just find it disturbing when people interpret inactivity as a universal validation of their opinion. Ed, Scott, Doug, George, et. al., please continue proclaiming your opinion as the only valid opinion. I will, henceforth, refrain from interfering.

Instead, I'm going to take my pseudo-intellectual, egotistical self and go on one of my periodic sabbaticals from this MB while I ponder the point of participation...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Douglas_oswell
Username: Douglas_oswell

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 1:24 am:   

I think you're giving me, at least, a bum rap, Mike. Notice in my post above that I didn't say that the encounter didn't happen to a dead certainty--I left the matter open by saying it was "highly unlikely" that Zodiac spoke to the police. Sorry you're so miffed, but the reason most people have opinions is because they believe those opinions to be correct. And you're not being beaten up simply because others don't always see things eye-to-eye with you.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 6:55 am:   

I would have thought that a conversation between Pelissetti and Fouke would have been pivitol to any subsequent movements by either and thus, remembered. Seems very strange indeed!
I have to be honest, it smacks of Pelissitti not wanting to contradict Fouke rather than supporting his story.
Secondly, how did he encounter Fouke at Zelms at the corner of Washington and Cherry a few minutes after the first encounter,if Fouke and Zelms were looking for Z in the park?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 6:57 am:   

Sorry Washington and Maple!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Warren
Username: Warren

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 8:23 am:   

Someone refresh my memory...If Fouke had spoken with Z, why wasn't he sat down in a room with a sketch artist?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Douglas_oswell
Username: Douglas_oswell

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 9:54 am:   

Cut it out, Warren.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Howard_davis
Username: Howard_davis

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 10:34 am:   

Mike C,
Stay on board!!!We need posters like you.I know it can get tough-they can play real rough,but keep rendering your ideas even though the repsonses are negative.

Mike,I think COMMON SENSE and police PROCEDURE would have been to stop this lone WMA who was in the immediate crime scene during the TIME of the commission of the cab murder and ask him if he saw anyone.You learn this at police Academy for God's sake.
When you are intently looking for a suspect you are NOT looking for a black man or a white man in THIS case,but ANYONE who may give you direction and information if they saw anyone suspicious in the area within the given time of the crime!

Now,that IS common sense AND police procedure.
See it all the time on police documentaries,etc.

It is a very lame excuse-and that's what it is-an excuse to say we passed up a potential witness because of his skin color!
If you DO NOT see a possible perp then you want to see the NEXT best thing-a possible WITNESS to aid your search!Common sense.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 1:27 pm:   

Howard, you are the last person in the world who should be commenting on what constitutes common sense.

Fouke was on the scene within minutes of the commission of the crime knowing full well that the perpetrator was still in the area. Fouke had an opportunity to catch the perp, but not if he stopped and asked every person who didn't match the description for their help. It was a predominantly white neighborhood, so it wouldn't have been unusual to see a white guy walking around the area. Fouke was looking for a black guy, not a white guy, so stopping someone who didn't resemble the original description is not common sense when he still had the opportunity to catch the guy. They weren't canvassing the neighborhood for details; they were looking for the perp, whom they thought to be black!

It's easy to play Monday morning quarterback, Howard, and question why Fouke didn't do this or why he did that. We could also do the same thing with Pelissetti; why didn't he drive up Cherry St. toward Jackson instead of doing so on foot? The fact is, it happened the way it happened and now it's over and nothing can be done about it. So, unless you have something to add besides a bunch of finger pointing and conspiratorial BS that has no basis in reality, how about examining the facts that are available to us for once in your life instead of making crap up as you go like you normally do?

(By the way, "common sense" also dictates that you go to the CADOJ, the CA Attorney General, SFPD, Vallejo PD, or even the local news outlets, if you learn that the LADA's office has covered up a series of crimes; not ignore it for ten years and then try to capitalize on it once you learned of Graysmith's book!)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 2:57 pm:   

I'm not interpreting any inactivity as any sort of validation of any theory. As you may recall, I was once on your side, Mike, but the more I looked at the facts, the more I realized there was absolutely nothing to support the belief in F&Z having stopped Z (or anyone else, for that matter). I suggest you do the same during your sabbatical and seriously consider the credibility of the people you place your belief in. Oh, and valid opinions are based on facts, not the ramblings of discredited political cartoonists and noncredible serial killers.

Howard, whatever we believe common sense and procedure to have been in SF in 1969, the facts weigh heavily in favor of F&Z driving by Z, which is what Fouke has always maintained truly happened that night. Lame excuse or not, the facts as I have outlined them above dictate that the stop cannot have happened. Seriously, I would like a reply that refutes the facts, especially the 3 letters Z sent after Stine's murder, which make absolutely no sense if F&Z really stopped and talked to him.

Sean, while Pelissetti may not specifically remember talking to Fouke at Jackson and Maple, so what? We're talking about a guy trying to remember every detail concerning a period of 5 minutes that happened during an incident 37 years ago that no one considered to be anything more than a routine cab robbery for the first 3 days, and it's obvious from the lack of a report about an alleged stop that it was not even an issue with SFPD until Yellow Book made it one 17 years after the fact. And since it was not an issue, it's totally understandable that the players who were involved do not remember every single little detail that occurred in those 5 minutes. But the fact remains that Pelissetti told the same story as Fouke (albeit from his point of view) independently of him, and the major details corroborate each other. That is what's important here, not that he remembers every tiny detail.

BTW, F&Z obviously had driven along West Pacific Avenue and, not having spotted Z, must have circled around back towards the crime scene and encountered Pelissetti yet again at Washington and Maple.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 5:18 pm:   

Let's continue this discussion here.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration