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

Zodiackiller.com Message Board » Paul Stine » Fouke and Zelms: The Final Chapter? Part 2 « 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 Monday, June 12, 2006 - 5:17 pm:   

Continued from here.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Deoxys
Username: Deoxys

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 10:50 pm:   

Apparently the final chapter will be a long one and probably won't end "...and they lived happily ever after".
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 2:08 am:   

Yellow Book has been proven to be wrong yet again, this time in the matter regarding the voiceprint of Z allegedly made by VPD. According to Nancy Slover, the one who was actually there and took Z's call, a recording was not made. It never existed, and yet, Yellow Book reported this "fact" as truth and has wasted the time, effort and money of many, many people who have tried to get to the bottom of it for the last 2 decades.

This is simply the latest in a very long list of misinformation, disinformation, fabrications and outright lies in his novels that has thus far been exposed. Why anyone today would place any faith in anything Yellow Book has ever written is truly beyond comprehension, and this newly uncovered fact simply illustrates the danger in doing so.

When it comes to Fouke & Zelms and Z's story about the alleged stop and conversation, all of the evidence points away from such a thing even occurring. The point I made above is even more reason to understand that Z lied and that Fouke has been nothing but consistently honest regarding what truly happened that night. That a stop even happened should not and cannot even be considered a "reasonable possibility" anymore. It simply didn't happen; Fouke & Zelms drove by Z that night, just as Fouke has always maintained, and Z took the simple truth and twisted it into the lie that so many people want to believe.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 5:36 am:   

Ed,
My comments were not designed to underpin an argument that a conversation took place with Z but simply to continue in an effort to get the full picture.
I certainly wouldn't categorize a conversation between Pelissetti and Fouke as a "little detail" forgotten.
The former set off from the scene in pursuit of the perp and encountered officers who had just passed the suspect.That conversation would have been one of the highlights of events that night.
Would it not be reasonable to expect that decisions were made based on that conversation? Perhaps some attempt to co-ordinate or focus the search.I guess we will have to wait until we have the full account from Pelissetti.I wonder if he continued on foot around the block or doubled back, it's all revelant.
This is also the first time we have any mention of Fouke and Zelms being anywhere but the park.
The clear impression given thus far, is that that search was more that a simple drive by.
It has been questioned why Fouke didn't return to the house having not seen Zodiac in the park area.
Now it appears that maybe he did.
To be honest I'm surprised he came back around so quickly and that he made no mention of it himself.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 4:18 pm:   

Sean, yes, the conversation was a little detail that was forgotten. Please tell me honestly, can you remember every little detail of a specific 5 minute incident that happened 37 years ago? I didn't think so. Neither can I. What one person doesn't specifically remember (Pelissetti), the other one fills in the blanks (Fouke). The fact is, the main points of the story each man independently told corroborates the other, and that is why they ring true.

Yes, Pelissetti did continue around the block. He walked east on Jackson, then made a right and walked up the hill along Maple, and apparently he encountered Fouke & Zelms a second time when he reached Washington.

The initial search would appear to have been a simple driveby along West Pacific, however, a more intense search was conducted sometime later in the Julius Kahn Park area with the cooperation of Presidio MPs.

Either way, the focus of my inquiry has been whether there was enough time for Fouke & Zelms to have stopped Z as he claimed they did. Yes, there is a very small window of opportunity (all of 15 seconds) for this to have occurred, but, as I have pointed out before, the documentary evidence (ie, Z's next 3 letters) do not bear his story out. Not only that, if it happened as Z claimed, then Fouke inexplicably lied about the stop only twenty seconds after it occured by claiming they only drove past Z instead of talking to him. Sorry, that makes no sense at all.

There is more to the story that needs to be told, but right now, Z's lie about the stop and conversation needs to be done away with once and for all.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 2:02 am:   

With the greatest respect Ed, you aked me to answer a question honestly and then answered it for me.
Now,I'll answer you honestly, if you phrase it like you did, then obviously No, I wouldn't remember every little detail from 37 years ago.
But I just don't agree( and this had nothing to do with a conversation between Fouke and Z)that this is a trivial detail that can be easily explained away beacuse it happened 37 years ago.
Pelissetti is well able to give minute details times etc. in the build up to this encounter up to and including spotting Fouke at Jackson and Cherry. However he has no recollection of any conversation that took place. That's disturbing, to me at least.
Surely if he can say he spotted them, he could also account for the circumstances.
Did he see them drive by?
Did he see them do a three point turn? What?
I don't believe it's a trivial detail for all the reason already explained.
I could understand perfectly if he said a conversation took place, but couldn't remember what was said. But not to remember or be able to recall that a conversation did take place!
If he recalls that he spotted Fouke pulling a three point turn, then obviously there was a reason for that and that would help him to remember. If he spotted Fouke driving by, then there's a problem isn't there?
Would you seriously write this off as not being significant?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 2:32 pm:   

I'd write this off as an aging man struggling to remember every tiny little detail of a 5 minute incident 37 years ago that he was barely involved with and not even questioned about until the last few years. I don't consider it significant in the least because the main points of his story are corroborated by the teens and also by Fouke.

Sean, no one has perfect recall. There are times when I have a near-photographic memory and eidetic recall, and other times when I can't properly remember a sequence of events (or forget incidents entirely) that just occurred earlier in the day. What it comes down to is: give the guy a break. Pelissetti's done the best he can given the circumstances (and thanks to Mike Butterfield, who's doing what Yellow Book should have been doing more than 20 years ago and getting the story before Pelissetti doesn't remember anything about it anymore).

BTW, Pelissetti was later in charge of the Z case, and he did not find any report about Fouke & Zelms stopping Z in the file. That is also quite significant as far as Z's lie goes, moreso than Pelissetti not recalling specifically whether he spoke to Fouke at Jackson and Maple or not.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Howard_davis
Username: Howard_davis

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 2:50 pm:   

Ed,
Thanks for the 15 seconds -all Jim Nelson and I wanted was 8.LOL
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 3:48 pm:   

You're welcome, Howard, but in light of the facts, every piece of evidence to the contrary and a lot of shaky assumptions, those 15 seconds are irrelevant.

I've mentioned before that a reasonable explanation is that since Zelms did not see Z, he was remembering a second encounter with someone entirely different in the area of the crime scene who they may have actually stopped and talked to and he linked that to Z's lie rather than the actual encounter with Z where they just drove by without stopping and talking to him. It's the only thing that fits the facts.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 8:09 pm:   

This has probably been noted before, but I was flipping through Graysmith's ZODIAC (Yellow book) tonight when I noticed something strange: In the first section of photographs and illustrations Graysmith drew a map of Presidio Height's where the Stine murder occurred and specifically points to the spot where "Zodiac (was) stopped by (an SFPD) patrol car."

Have a look for yourselves, folks; Graysmith has the "encounter" taking place between Washington and Jackson instead of at Jackson and Maple, pretty much still in sight of the teen witnesses and Pelissetti.

Gee, that Robert Graysmith sure is a stickler for details. It's a good thing that he had Dave Toschi's help in putting all this information together, otherwise this subject would be really hard to figure out. What did Dave Toschi do, tell Graysmith something along these lines: Not only did we feel that Fouke and Zelms stopped and talked to the Zodiac, but we felt that it wasn't even at the spot where Fouke states that it happened. Those damned decorated police officers are always making sh*t up.

Seriously, if Graysmith had all the information that he claims, how is it that he could draw a map that depicts the wrong location where Fouke saw the Zodiac?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 12:42 am:   

Scott, Yellow Book gives us 3 different locations, as we know: Jackson & Cherry (Zodiac, pp. 85-86 and plate 12 in the first photo section), and, if that were in fact the spot, then Pelissetti and the teens would definitely have seen the encounter. The second location is in front of 3769 Jackson Street (The Ultimate Ten) and finally, walking north on Maple (Zodiac Unmasked, p. 22).

Yellow Book obviously has absolutely no clue where the encounter really took place since he's given us three separate locations in 3 different sources: one at each end of the block, and one on the wrong side of the street. Seriously, considering he clearly has no idea what he's talking about, why would anyone trust him when he claims that Z was actually being truthful and that Fouke is lying???

Sorry, it makes no sense to me; I cannot trust some discredited political cartoonist who can't even keep his story straight. I'll put my $$$ on Fouke, thank you very much.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 3:00 pm:   

"Sorry, it makes no sense to me; I cannot trust some discredited political cartoonist who can't even keep his story straight. I'll put my $$$ on Fouke, thank you very much."

I'm with you, Ed.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 5:31 pm:   

Tom, if you are going to delete my posts where I'm supposedly "name calling," even though I was being completely factual, then why aren't you deleting the posts where Howard insinuates and/or blatantly refers to Don Fouke as a liar? After all, there is no proof that Fouke is a liar; therefore Howard is the one who's truly doing the name calling.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 7:03 pm:   

Scott, you have yet to prove that Howard is lying even though I've asked you countless times to do so.

Attack his theory, fine; not him personally. And do it by proving his findings were incorrect. You haven't done so.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ericd
Username: Ericd

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 7:41 pm:   

Ed,
Before the message board was destroyed you posted a map of the area that you created using MS Paint or something. Any chance of reposting this?
Also, somewhere in these never-ending threads an idea was posted that Z may have seen Fouke and Zelms talk to Pelisetti and watched them turn the corner - then Z wrote his description of events as if he were in Pelisetti's shoes. To me, this scenario makes alot of sense.
Ed, do you think it at all possible for Z to have viewed the interaction with Pelisetti from a distance away?
P.S. Thanks for all your work in this area, Ed. You've really clarified the sequence of events on this controversial night.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 7:44 pm:   

Tom, I take serious exception to your last post. Not once have I said that Howard is lying about anything, and you haven't asked me to prove that he was at any point that I can think of. Furthermore, I am attacking his theory by asking time and time again to no avail: Howard, do you have any proof that Don Fouke is a liar? To date, Howard has provided nothing.

Don't you even remember how all of this got started, Tom? Howard and Jim Nelson posted a "World Exclusive" interview with Diane Zelms on their website, and then started a thread about it on yours. I was the one who initially took exception to it, saying that it is third-hand testimony that doesn't mean squat, which it doesn't. And yet, here we are, all these months later, and my thesis holds more water than it ever has. And do you want to know why it hasn't been disproved, Tom? Because all of the facts are on my side, that's why. So don't tell me what I have and haven't done, because I know full well the ramifications of every word I've ever typed on the subject. You are sorely mistaken if you believe for 1 second that I haven't held up my end of the deal.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 8:08 pm:   

Scott, exactly what does Fouke have to do with Howard's theory? Not a thing.

The Diane Zelms deal is a seperate issue entirely. It's simply a matter of who you choose to believe. Just because you disagree with who Howard chooses to believe doesn't make it appropriate to attack him over and over and over again in this forum.

You made that point long ago. Enough already.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 8:38 pm:   

Tom, have you noted the subject heading of this thread, that you started, by the way, or not? How can you say that the Diane Zelms' interview is irrelevant?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 8:51 pm:   

Howard had a theory you disagreed with long before Diane Zelms entered the picture, Scott. I'm not concerned with her, Bugliosi, or any other distractions you attempt to throw my way. I also don't care what the thread title is or who started it.

Please quit attacking Howard. You turned it personal and you're continuing it even when he stops responding. Enough. We got the point weeks ago.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 9:02 pm:   

That's fine, Tom. But remember who you're talking to when you describe someone as a "nuthugger."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 9:53 pm:   

Oh yeah, my reaction is all because I like Howie and has nothing to do with anything you might have done that wasn't cool.

Hey Scott, why don't you ask Ed how many times I've asked him to quit flaming Carl and move on. And it's not because I like Carl and don't like Ed, either.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 4:54 am:   

Ed,
All it would have taken for me to finish this once and for all would have been for Pelissetti to say he spoke with Fouke at the corner of Jackson and Cherry. There were other things I was uncomfortable about, but it wouldn't have been worth arguing.
That conversation is particularly pertintent to Fouke's claims as to why he didn't have a conversation with Z and why Zelms said or seen nothing.
Now granted that's not Pelisseti's fault if he doesn't remember.
However lets look at the following scenario:_

The kids tell Pelissetti that Z is just gone around the corner and he sets off in pursuit.Fouke and Zelms have just passed Z and both meet at the corner of jackson and cherry.
A conversation takes place, things are clarified.
Fouke says he just passed the perp and heads off around into the presidio to see if he can cut him off and Pelissetti continues around to block to follow up from that side.Neither encounter Zodiac and they bump into each other again at Washington and Maple, in the time it takes Pelissetti to walk around (a few minutes).
Is that fair?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 12:47 pm:   

It sure is. Sean, when you consider all of the other arguments against such a stop, such as the evidence from Z's next 3 letters, the noncredibility of Z himself, the noncredibility of Yellow Book (who gave us 3 separate locations for the alleged stop in 3 different sources), and Fouke's consistent denial that a stop even occurred, Pelissetti not remembering one small detail is irrelevant, especially after 37 years; the fact that everyone's story is consistent and corroborates each other is what is important.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 4:35 pm:   

OK Ed, I want to remind you again that I'm not even necessarily arguing about a Fouke/Z conversation, for the most part, it's almost irrelevant(not quite)in terms of the overall picture.
However,I still remain convinced that something isn't right here. I don't know what it is at this stage.
If the above scenario is fair, here's what bothers me:-
Fouke tells us straight up that he believes the most likely place for Z to have gone was into the park (to hide in the bushes/trees). Yet, all he does is a quick drive by down Pacific and returns to the residential area. Given his actions, unless he spots Z crossing the road or out in the open, he hasn't undertaken any real search.

I can only assume from there, that he played his card and at some time must have realised that maybe he got it wrong after all. (Since he returned to the residential side so quickly).
A thorough search of the park revealed nothing, so again it must have crossed his mind that(even later) that Z did something else....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 4:53 pm:   

Yet he still, one week later(or whenever it was) still writes in a memo that he observed the perp heading north on maple. He didn't and we have no explanation for that.

On Pellissetti's side (I'm sorry) I still don't agree. He didn't forget he spoke to the kids who told him Z had just left.This Ed, was the night Zodiac got away when they were feet from him. The conversation at jackson and Cherry was just as relevant, in the circumstances, as the conversation with the kids."We had him/Fouke had him" only for the dispatch error, that's not a trivial point.Pelissttti's actions following that conversation would have determined his next move.
Pellisetti didn't see the perp when he got to Jackson and Cherry, but he still continued east on Jackson.If Fouke had told him that he seen the perp at the corner of the next block, then Z was well gone, so what was the point in continuing on foot?

Mike Rodelli made a fair point in relation to Graysmith/ Fouke...he said Fouke contacted him complaining (after the first book) about the stop.
What was Graysmith's reaction...ignore him and repeat the claim but this time including apparent claims from Toschi.
As has been correctly pointed out, Graysmith wasn't there, so that information most likely came from Toschi.Maybe he did Ed, but I still am not prepared to link Toschi/Graysmith in that manner.If Toschi told that lie he's worse than Graysmith, doing that to a fellow officer or having anything to do with it should the blame rest with RG....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 5:02 pm:   

When Mike first reported his interviews, Fouke stated that Toschi or Armstrong may have interviewed him at the Richmond station. Now, while he's still maintaining that a detective did interview him, he's claiming that it wasn't Toschi, going as far as to say that he wouldn't know Toschi "if he met him in an elevator", the most famous detective in SF at the time.

Again this isn't necessarily about a Fouke/Z conversation. But if Pelessitti took over the case, why do you believe it's important that he found no record of a stop in the files?
Surely the whole point of any cover up(if there was one) was that it was a dept hush job, not Fouke himself acting alone.
Again if Pelessitti took over the case, doesn't it make his comments on that show all the more damning? We still don't have an explanation for that either.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, June 18, 2006 - 1:56 am:   

Scott and I talked over the phone for a couple of hours on Friday and everything is more than cool between the two of us.

Updates regarding the situation between Scott and Howard will be posted soon. However, I'm sure that no matter what, they will remain friends as usual.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 8:11 pm:   

Sean, Fouke was hoping to catch Z in his headlights. He did not. What then did you expect him to do? Start searching the Presidio with no backup? Two cops and one fugitive, all on foot, and how many acres of trees and bushes to search in the dark with no moon and with no idea as to where to even begin? That makes no sense, Sean.

If I am not mistaken, Fouke thought that the memo reproduced in ZU was similar to the one he wrote; I don't recall him saying that it definitely was (Mike R can probably answer that one for certain). It's pretty fishy to me that Yellow Book suddenly found it when it's obvious that he could not have had it at the time he was writing the yellow book 16 years before (he gives locations at opposite ends of the same block in each book), and it's even fishier when RG "quotes" it (p. 22):

It is crucial enough to quote in full:

"Sir: I respectfully wish to report the following, that while responding to the area of Cherry and Washington Streets a suspect fitting the description of the Zodiac killer was observed by Officer Fouke," he wrote," walking in an easterly direction on Jackson street..."


The words I emphasized cannot have been in the original memo. Why in hell would Yellow Book, if he was quoting someone else's memo, break into the quote with "he wrote"??? That makes no sense, and it smacks of fabrication to me. Yes, Fouke said it was similar, and he insisted that he wrote it about the time the composites came out, not a month later on 11-12-1969 as Yellow Book claims. If Yellow Book truly had the original memo, why did he assign the wrong date to it?

I don't know why Pelissetti continued around the block, but a good guess is that he would have been remiss in his duties to have assumed that Z must have escaped into the Presidio and not checked out the area just in case Z doubled back. And as far Pelissetti as not finding a report on the alleged stop: that speaks volumes. Why wasn't there one? Because the stop never happened.

I would suspect that his comments on Cold Case Files came right out of the yellow book; he probably assumed that Yellow Book knew something he didn't. Or, maybe it was taken out of context, who knows?

We have no way of knowing what Toschi told RG other than Fouke's and Zelms' names. I suspect that Toschi told him the basics, and RG made up the rest.

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Post as "Anonymous"
Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

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