Mr. X WEBSITE UPDATED Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Zodiackiller.com Message Board » Other Zodiac Suspects » All Other Zodiac Suspects » Mr. X WEBSITE UPDATED « Previous Next »

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

Mike_r
Username: Mike_r

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 1:13 pm:   

Hi-

I have decided to update and relaunch my web site based on new research that I did in San Frnacisco last fall.

www.mikerodelli.com

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

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 2:21 pm:   

Fascinating read Mike! Much if it hasn't sunk it yet, but what an adventure you are having with this.It must have been an amazing feeling to get to sit down across from the person you believe may be the Zodiac killer.
I remember some time back you said it would make an interesting story even if X turned out to be innocent.It will NOW.
As far as meeting him goes and potential problems it might arise in time, I don't think you had a choice.I certainly wouldn't have turned it down.
Despite my own beliefs and theories, I'm still very much open about this case and wish you well one way or the other.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Exiled
Username: Exiled

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 2:56 pm:   

Yes, very well done Mike....to the point and factual. You should have relaunched months ago.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_r
Username: Mike_r

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 2:56 pm:   

Hi Sean-

We've butted heads over various issues over the years, so I appreciate your open-mindedness and your encouraging words. I just keep following my story wherever it leads me, since the police do not seem interested in doing so (much to my chagrin). Maybe this new development will finally get their interest.

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

Mike_r
Username: Mike_r

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 3:00 pm:   

Hi Exiled-

Thanks!

Well, I would have gone public sooner but I wanted to be as fair to Mr. X as possible. My story is first and foremost about facts. I kept trying to track down the SFPD side of the 10/11/69 "encounter" story before I went public. I've now done so to the best of my ability and feel that I am on solid enough ground saying what I did.

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

Yarbchris
Username: Yarbchris

Registered: 9-2006
Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 3:01 pm:   

As a visitor of your previous site, I was pleased to see the new information. Your findings are, as always, very intriguing. I still have no suspect that stands above the others, but I appreciate your persistence in something you truly believe. Thanks for the update!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Deoxys
Username: Deoxys

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 6:47 pm:   

Fascinating, Mike. It must have been an amazing experience to actually sit down with your suspect face-to-face. Did Mr. X offer any other reasons why you shouldn't believe he was Z?

I have no doubt you have tons of circumstantial evidence which points to Mr. X or at least points to the fact that he should be a serious person of interest to LE. Their insistence that YOU investigate him for them must be frustrating indeed. I imagine if you found him 20 years ago, you would have received a far different response.

What prevents you at this point from laying all of your cards on the table about Mr. X? I understand that he is a rather prominent citizen with no criminal record (Doug doesn't have to worry about "slandering" Ted Kaczynski, does he?). I've had that same issue in posting info. about BC but, in my mind, you would simply be documenting objective comparisons to facts about Z. As long as you don't refer to him by name or make the claim that he WAS Zodiac, I would think you would be well within your legal right to do so. Is their a lawyer in the house? Paging Warren...

Regardless, I admire your persistence and dedication to seeing the idea through and you've obviously contributed much to the case beyond Mr. X. Look forward to reading the DNA update...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 7:04 pm:   

Mike, you do realize that, if Mr X were Z, he had literally just a few minutes after being seen by Fouke & Zelms to run home, get out of his bloody clothes, clean up (where? In a sink, shower or bathtub?), put on clean clothes, grab his dog, and then run back towards the officer in question and duck up Maple Street to wait and be discovered by him? He had just murdered Paul Stine, was spotted by 2 cops a mere 2 minutes after leaving the scene of the crime, and you're suggesting he positioned himself on Maple to be spotted with his dog by a cop who somehow didn't see him running towards him along Jackson and run up Maple while he had his eyes peeled looking for Z? We know he was at the corner of Jackson and Cherry, spoke to Fouke & Zelms, and immediately started east on Jackson. The only route X could have taken to reach Maple was in full view of that officer for some minutes before he arrived at Jackson and Maple and discovered the man with his dog, and yet, he saw nothing.

The timing of this is quite simply impossible. The officer in question would have spotted him long before he encountered him on Maple Street; there is no other way to get there, unless he ran east on Jackson, south on Spruce, west on Washington and north on Maple (ie, around that huge block, but even then, he would have been seen), and it's quite simply impossible for him to have done so and then been stopped and questioned. It would have taken far too long, and he would have been out of breath; surely, the officer in question would have asked why he was breathing so hard if he was walking his dog.

Not only that, Mr X would still have been on an adrenaline high after the murder, and probably in something close to shock after being spotted by 2 cops, yet, despite the fact that he knew cops were already prowling the neighborhood looking for him, he chose leave the safety of his own home and go back outside in order to position himself in such a way that he could be spotted, stopped and questioned by a third cop?

The only thing I can suggest is that the officer in question is unfortunately mistaken as to the identity of the man he stopped and questioned; I've no doubt that, over the years, he did check out the man he actually stopped and questioned on Maple Street, but in recent years confused him with Mr X and is now assuming that's who he stopped that night. I certainly understand any excitement about Mr X's apparently inconsistent story, but there are certain things, such as the time factor, the fact that the officer did not see X until he rounded the corner on Maple, the fact that X should have been breathless and trembling with excitement and/or fear (but this was apparently not noted as it should have been), and the fact that the teen witnesses did not ID this man (assuming he was the same one in the back of the cruiser) that mitigate against Mr X being the man out walking his dog and being questioned that night.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 7:08 pm:   

Mike, based on the timing of events as remembered by Fouke and others, I just don't see how Mr. X could have reached home, changed, cleaned up, leashed his dog and made it to that spot in time to encounter the officer. If it was really him.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 7:44 pm:   

My understanding is that Zodiac only had about a block head start by the time Officer Pelisetti arrived at the crime scene and began to follow on foot. By the time Pelisetti reached the intersection of Cherry and Jackson to speak with Fouke and Zelms, Zodiac would have probably just reached Spruce.

If Mr. X was both the Zodiac and the dogwalker, he would have needed to reach his house, change, get blood off of his body, probably hide the gun and clothes, get his dog, and get back to Maple...all in the time it took Pelisetti to walk one short block AND not be seen by Pelisetti in the meantime.

I don't see how that is possible.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_r
Username: Mike_r

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 7:50 pm:   

Hi Tom and Ed-

Everyone is entitled to his opinion. It is all based on how quickly the cop made it to the spot. We know that Z was at Jackson and Maple at the time that Fouke spotted him. From there, it is a very quick walk to the park and then, Ed and Tom, you know where the final destination was (can't discuss it here) but that could have almost been attained by the time that Fouke spoke to the other cop at Cherry/Jackson.

Obviously, this would have been planned long in advance, so everything would have been ready for the changeover. Regardless, Mr. X was on the streets right after the murder. This cop says that he revisited this man several times since 1969. He should know who he did and did not stop. If he doesn't, then that is pretty unfortunate.

As for adrenaline, maybe that is why he was standing in the shadows for a while, to compose himself a bit before heading up the hill. We don't know exactly why this cop even spent a minute with him if he felt the timing was off and that the man was just a witness who probably said that he did not see anything, let alone the amount of time the cop did spend going back and forth to him. Maybe the man was acting a bit unusually. That doesn't even touch upon the possibility that he resembled the man they were searching for enough to be possibly shown off to the eyewitnesses.

A prominent retired detective who worked on the original Z case said that this is not the type of alibi he'd like to have. He said that unless the detective had a stopwatch on himself, he could not tell you how long it took for him to get there. Don't forget, too, that as you head east on Jackson from Cherry, it goes pretty steeply downhill. You cannot see what is going on at Maple until you go down the block a ways. And don't forget that it was also night time and the cop was looking for someone who could pop out at any time from behind a car and take a shot at him. You tell me how fast he walked.

But if you choose to explain even this as being "just another innocent coincidence," so be it. I've been there many times before, so I'm quite used to it. I'm reporting what I know to be the facts. And I also think that if timing is the only question, I deserve the benefit of the doubt, based on the circumstances that also tie Mr. X into the case.

Had something similar to this incident happened with Allen after one of the Vallejo murders or after the phone call, my sense is that this type of information would be much more titillating to the board members. There would be all manner of ways in which the timing problem would be rationalized away and all of a sudden, Allen would look more guilty.

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

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 8:02 pm:   

I think we can agree that Mr. X would certainly have changed his clothes and gotten the blood off of him prior to returning to the crime scene, correct?

Blood doesn't wash off as easily as other liquids, and he likely had quite a bit on his hands and probably elsewhere on his body. So that couldn't have been a quick process, regardless of how prepared he was.

For Mr. X to have killed Stine and reached home in time to be the dogwalker, I believe it's fair to say he would definitely have needed to hurry upon reaching his house. However, based on Pelisetti's account, the dogwalker was just lurking. If that indeed was Mr. X, why would he rush to clean up and change in the first place if he wasn't going to return right away?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Yarbchris
Username: Yarbchris

Registered: 9-2006
Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 8:28 pm:   

I had been thinking on this, too. The subject described at the LB attacks had his cuffs cinched. I think this was an effort to use his outer clothes as "coveralls" with other "clean" clothes beneath. I suspect that the Stine killer used a similar method. As for blood on the hands, it would be difficult to wash away in such a short time. If the dog-walker was the person he would likely have had to be wearing gloves during the crime, even if they were only the hospital type. Another possibility is that the dog walker was wearing gloves, visually obscuring any blood left on the hands. Regardless, blood is not an easy substance to rinse from ones hands, especially given a few moments to dry. The amount of blood the Stine killer encountered would not be minimal in volume, either.

I think a good question would be the behavior of the dog. I know from experience as an outdoorsman that certain dogs in the presence of blood act strangely. I had a couple of large mixed-breed dogs that would whine and cry as they watched me clean blues and flatheads from the Red River. If the dog spent time at the man's hands, that would indicate the presence of blood residue. It may be hard to fool a man, but a dog is stronger in certain sensory areas.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Douglas_oswell
Username: Douglas_oswell

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 10:37 pm:   

In my opinion the whole thing is moot unless you can come up with a motive. What's Mr. X's motive? And who has he killed or threatened since the Stine murder? Someone doesn't simply up and become a severely disaffected killer apropos of nothing, particularly when he's a more-or-less prominent individual; a "winner" in life, and then turn off the pathology as if he were flipping a light switch. A motive, along with some kind of behavioral/psychological assessment would go a long way toward shoring up the circumstantial evidence against Mr. X.

Mike, since it doesn't appear as if you'll ever be able to pursue Mr. X in the same way I've had the luxury of pursuing Ted Kaczynski, you might want to consider presenting your case in a fictional "what-if" scenario.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 12:25 am:   

Mike, as titillating as this is, the fact remains that Pelissetti was almost at the corner of Jackson and Cherry when Fouke & Zelms pulled up. It's hard to say how long that conversation lasted, but I would be surprised if it was longer than 30 seconds; it took F&Z 20 seconds to round the corner after passing Z. That means we have F&Z taking off towards Arguello 50 seconds after passing Z.

Once they left, Pelissetti rounded the corner to continue around the block. Unless he dawdled there for 5-10 minutes before bothering to walk around the corner, he should have been walking east on Jackson within seconds of F&Z tearing off in the opposite direction to the Presidio. Ten seconds is more than enough time, so Pelissetti was on Jackson 60 seconds after F&Z passed Z.

From there, it is a very quick walk to the park and then, Ed and Tom, you know where the final destination was (can't discuss it here) but that could have almost been attained by the time that Fouke spoke to the other cop at Cherry/Jackson.

Actually, it's not that quick, and IIRC, it took me about a minute and a half to run from 3712/3728 Jackson to Spruce/Pacific/West Pacific. That's quite a long time, and given the 60 second time frame we have, Mr X could easily have made it inside his house.

He said that unless the detective had a stopwatch on himself, he could not tell you how long it took for him to get there. Don't forget, too, that as you head east on Jackson from Cherry, it goes pretty steeply downhill. You cannot see what is going on at Maple until you go down the block a ways. And don't forget that it was also night time and the cop was looking for someone who could pop out at any time from behind a car and take a shot at him. You tell me how fast he walked.

Mike, that's irrelevant and you know it. Once Pelissetti rounded the corner from Cherry onto Jackson, it makes absolutely no difference how many minutes it took for him to get to Maple; given the estimated 60 seconds from the time F&Z passed Z to when Pelissetti rounded the corner, Mr X would have been walking through his front door. There's no reason for Pelissetti to have waited around while F&Z were off chasing Z, so 60 seconds is, I think, an acceptable timeframe (especially when we consider that they knew Z was still in the area and only literally seconds ahead of them).

In your scenario, Mike, once Mr X was home, he had to change his clothes, wash the blood off, hide the gun, grab the dog and put the leash on, then run back out onto the street and run up Maple. Even assuming he planned everything, such as wearing a second set of clothes to catch the blood, gloves, had the dog waiting at home with a leash on (and even leaving the front door unlocked so he didn't have to fumble for the key), he still had to lose the outer set of clothes, gloves and gun, grab the waiting dog and run back out to Maple.

However, now we run into a very serious problem: how did X accomplish all of these things and then get to Maple without being seen by Pelissetti? You and I both know that there simply isn't enough time for him to have done all those things and then run up Maple and out of sight before Pelissetti rounded the corner of Cherry and Jackson, since he would have just been walking through his front door at that moment. Even assuming he was inside within 30 seconds, he had another 30 seconds to accomplish all those things I listed above. Sorry, not only do I not buy it, it's quite simply impossible given the timing, and there is no way around that.

This means that, if we assume Mr X is Z, then he had to have left his home in full view of Pelissetti, and yet, Pelissetti, who was out looking for a killer, failed to notice him run across the street and up Maple? Mike, now please be honest and ask yourself if Mr X could have done all of what I listed above given the tight timeframe that we both know is reasonably accurate.

Had something similar to this incident happened with Allen after one of the Vallejo murders or after the phone call, my sense is that this type of information would be much more titillating to the board members. There would be all manner of ways in which the timing problem would be rationalized away and all of a sudden, Allen would look more guilty.

The argument you're using about Allen supporters rationalizing away the timing problem is precisely what you're doing with Mr X; actually, you're not even rationalizing it, you're simply ignoring it. There's no way around it, period, unless you want to start rationalizing it and suggest that Pelissetti stared at his shoes and wondered what to do for perhaps 5 minutes, then suddenly decided he'd better go around the corner and look for Stine's killer.

The only reasonable explanation I can come up with is that Mr X was out of the country as he claimed and that Pelissetti stopped someone else and questioned him, only to confuse him in later years with Mr X for some reason. If there is any record of this man's name in SFPD's files, I'd be willing to bet it's not Mr X's. If it was, I'd be very surprised.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 12:49 am:   

Doug, I agree with you about motive. If Mike can come up with something about Mr. X that shows he had a weird/violent/anti-social side, it'll help his cause immensely.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 3:47 am:   

Can I ask Mike, if you have followed up on this with the teen witneses and if Fouke was asked to take a look at this guy?
Also (I don't know if you can answer this one)what did X say (if he did) was his motivation for writing the original letter? (The one that Ed found)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_r
Username: Mike_r

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 4:48 am:   

Hi-

There are very interesting discussions about motive that do not come out of profiling books. I had a very interesting discussion with the author of one of these books early in 2006 about possible motive in the Z case. I'm not concerned about motive at this point.

Let's stick to facts:

Let me address the things I can address. The timing thing is something that is so subjective that we can argue it back and forth forever without resolution. The bottom line is that if you do not accept the timing, then you can simply confront the issue of why this man, a law abiding citizen who told me face to face that he only walked a dog twice in his life and rarely or never walked around his own block, just happened to be on the streets right after the Stine murder, was accosted and detained by SFPD, but does not now recall that happening at all. It seems reasonable to suggest that this is a once-in-a-lifetime event that you'd never forget.

Nobody knows how much blood Z got on him or where it was distributed. If the blowback went into the gun barrel as a result of the seal between the head and the gun being so tight, then he may not have had it all over his face and in his hair. So then we're talking about blood on his legs/lap and his hands, although this whole issue of gloves has now come up, so it is debatable how much he even had there. (Tom, it scares me that you know that it is more difficult to wash blood off of yourself than other liquids. Where did you learn about this?) ;)

So let's say for the sake of argument that Z had minimal blood on him and that it was mainly confined to his clothes. That would jibe with the notion that Fouke did not notice him dripping with it and stop him for questioning.

As for why he'd head back out to the streets after the Fouke encounter, I can't be specific but one of the eyewitnesses reported that Z did something before he left the cab to make the crime look staged. The eyewitnesses there in general do not feel that at any time Z looked up and saw them. This is their opinion and they were there, we weren't. There is, however, something that happened after the murder, that tends to support thier point of view.

When Z was walking down Jackson Street, he was looking down at the ground and from what I know from a retired SFPD detective, I do not think it was because he was wearing someone else's glasses. Fouke said that when the lights of his car came upon him, the man seemed startled. If Z knew that he had been seen by eyewitnesses, he would undoubtedly have been on the lookout for cop cars and would certainly not have been looking down at the ground as he walked. Z was probably caught off guard because he felt that NOBODY HAD SEEN HIM KILL STINE.

If this is the case, then Z's feelings that he was not seen by anyone were only confirmed when Fouke drove right past him and kept going. Put yourself in Z's shoes. He knows that he killed someone and now the cops are right on top of him. The gig is up. But they look at him and drive away. He knows nothing about the NMA description. All he knows is that the cop car is either on routine patrol and nobody has even reported the crime yet (which surely would have been the case by now had anyone been watching him the whole time) or he does not look like the guy they are after. Either way, he's won again.

As for the issue of line of sight on Jackson: Because the hill is steeper between Cherry and Maple on Jackson and then levels off a bit at the intersection, the trees tend to obscure what is going on, especially at night, on the corner of Maple and Jackson, when you are standing a block west of that intersection at Cherry. Who is to say that Pelissetti may not have vaguely seen someone walking quickly with a dog up Maple from Jackson as he headed east and got closer to Maple? He was probably looking for potential suspects on the north side of the street heading east and then north. A fast dog walker is still a dog walker. What he did not expect is a man who was standing still on Maple and who, for some unknown reason, caught the cop's attention enough on closer examination for him not to simply ask a quick question and then make his way back to the crime scene. This officer is very antagonistic towards me, so I can't simply ask him why he detained this man and made him account for his time, etc.

I can tell you that of the criteria this cop now gives for why he ultimately ruled this dog walker out, none of them was given as being that the man did not resemble the person that the kids had described to him before he took off from the crime scene. That, of course, would be consistent with the notion that the man was later placed in a car and taken to the witnesses.

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

Mike_r
Username: Mike_r

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 4:58 am:   

Hi Sean-

I did not ask to record the conversation for obvious reasons, so I have to rely on memory. I do not recall X explaining why he wrote the letter. I only recall him saying that he read it over and does not see how it ties into the case at all. However, profilers, detectives and a judge have all read it and find many of the elements interesting. I defer to them.

As for the kids and Fouke, the kids failed to ID the man they were asked to look at. However, this would have been after he changed into different clothes and had a chance to alter his appearance (maybe by taking off his glasses?). Fouke was never asked to look at him, although the other cop tells a story that I was unable to verify about Fouke driving by while he was talking to the dog walker, pointing to the guy and saying, "How about him? He looks like the guy we're looking for," or something to that effect. Fouke does not recall such an encounter. Maybe it was another cop who drove by and said that, if the event happened at all.

I wish this stuff had been written into the reports from that night. If the events are in a report, and they should be(!), I sure haven't seen it.

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

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 5:22 am:   

Thanks Mike,
I'm drawing a line through a couple of different aspect of the evidence, so please bear with me.
The question I was getting at was if you(or Jim) actually followed up with the witnesses and got their impressions of the person they were shown.
The glasses and whether he was wearing them is an important issue and perhaps it's something worth verifying.
We have witness here who observed Zodiac for a sufficient amount of time, studied his face etc.
We then have a description given out which (aparently) Pelissetti thought this dog walker was a close enough match to, to raise his suspicions.
I'm particularly interested in this one witness who originally had a reaction to seeing X's photo.
The point I'm making is that the difference between the composite and X/ Zodiac and the composite is at best (according to your evidence)
a different combing of the hair and a possible removal of the glasses.
It's hard to see (at this point) why they wouldn't see a strong resemblance, viewing this guy shortly afterwards. Does that make sense?
The change in "descise" can hardly be that dramatic, can it?
It's also possible of course that Pelissetti, was suspicious because this guy had a high hairline and "was" wearing glasses, which makes the failure of the other witnesses all the more puzzling.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Brian_d
Username: Brian_d

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 6:38 am:   

Mike, I think I raised this point some time ago. Mr. X and the teen witnesses are all longtime residents in that neighborhood. I also believe Mr. X is a relatively well known figure appearing on TV. Why haven't the witnesses recognized Z doing television commercials or recognize their neighbor of a few doors down getting out of a dead man's taxi?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_r
Username: Mike_r

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 6:44 am:   

Hi Sean-

It is impossible for me to explain every aspect of what happened that night, as much as I wish I could. I can only tell you that a dog walker was put in front of the kids. I do not know for sure that it is the same person that the cop in question stopped. However, if the man was dressed differently (which he definitely was), had altered his appearance, and the cops told the kids that this was just a man who had been out walking his dog (i.e., one of their wealthy neighbors), that might have made the difference between them recognizing him and not doing so.

Mr. X made a reference to me and Jim about understanding the difference between the way he looked with and without glasses. He apparently wore glasses that he did not need, in order to look "older" in the past. This comment was completely unsolicited and was not made in response to a question.

The bottom line is that while some people may want to throw the baby out the window with the proverbial bathwater, you have the man with one of the strongest circumstantial cases (if not THE strongest circumstantial case) against him also being accosted and detained after one of the murders and then not recalling said incident. I should hope that this would be of interest to someone in LE somewhere.

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

Mike_r
Username: Mike_r

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 6:48 am:   

Hi-

Mr. X was not, that I have ever learned, in any local TV commercials. Do you know something about this that has never come to my attention? (Please be careful in answering by not stating what the specific product may have been.)

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

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 7:19 am:   

It's funny in a way, that Graysmith suggested that Zodiac didn't stop at the corner of Washington and Maple because of a man walking his dog!(whether true or not)
A piece of information that perhaps was there all the time.
In any case I agree with you Mike, I would have expected that this guy would have provided you with a piece of information, that would have proved he could not be responsible, especially for this murder.He didn't! I can't fathom why he's involving himself at all, peculiar!
For whatever reason, his meeting with you sounds more like information gathering on his part.
Whatever the final outcome, I think this needs to run it's course.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_r
Username: Mike_r

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 7:34 am:   

Hi Sean-

He didn't need to "information gather" in that manner. Had he ever written to me and asked me for my report, I would have sent it to him with no questions asked. In fact, one of the preconditions that Zoellner set for me in 2000 was that before he went in to speak with X, I had to provide X with a way to contact me and request my report.

I wasn't happy about this request, but I took out a PO Box, which was provided to X by Zoellner. I never got a single piece of correspondence, whether it be threatening, inquisitive, or otherwise from him or his attorneys, etc.

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

Angie
Username: Angie

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 10:05 am:   

Good morning,

Mr. X has been on television in the Bay Area, although not an actual commercial (that I saw, at least).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 12:35 pm:   

Mr. X is in his mid to late 80s, Mike. I bet there are things he can't remember that are far more important than being questioned by a cop. IF that was even him. Also, Stine wasn't the only cabbie murdered in that neighborhood around that time, he was just the first.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Douglas_oswell
Username: Douglas_oswell

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 12:52 pm:   

I didn't realize he was that old. It would put him a bit on the far end of the age ranges.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Angie
Username: Angie

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 1:20 pm:   

He is old, but you really wouldn't know it from watching him speak. When I saw his TV appearance a while back, I was impressed by his articulation and I thought he came off as rather charming. I think I was kind of expecting the boogeyman, but he definitely did not seem that way to me.

Oh, and he didn't have a monotonous tone to his voice either.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Flashram
Username: Flashram

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 2:22 pm:   

I feel your work is exceptional, and obviously very researched. Ed and Tom have good counterpoints to this theory, though. Unfortunately, there are good enough counterpoints to every suspect to keep it from going any further. I am amazed at how much information and how many viable theories there are on this board. My eyes ache for hours after a good sitting. Keep up the good work!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hawk
Username: Hawk

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 4:42 pm:   

Mike r, I'm glad to see your website up and running again. I must say I do admire your persistence. I also want to add that I understand how you feel. I feel as strongly about my so called Rock Quarry theory as you do Mr. X. And I know how it can keep eating away at you despite how many brick walls you hit.

Who knows, maybe Mr. X has a letter tucked away that is to be sent to you after his death that may ease your mind one way or the other.

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