Citizen Q? Message Board: Other Suspects: Citizen Q?

By Mike J. Doe ( - on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 10:50 pm:

I believe Ed mentioned suspect Citizen Q who looks like composite and all. This is the first time I've heard of Citizen Q. If this was discussed on the board before, then i apoligize and i must have missed it. I'm still interested in finding more info on this suspect if Tom, Ed ,or anyone can fill me on him. Thanks.

By Tom_Voigt ( - on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 10:54 pm:

I believe Ed is the man to answer this, but until then, make sure you watch ABC's Primetime Thursday tomorrow night; they will feature Q in their hour-long Zodiac show.

By Scott_Bullock ( - on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 07:42 am:

Mike, what is it that you want to know exactly? I mean, is there something specific that you want to know about him? Or, are you looking for a general synopsis of his involvement in the case?

Here's what I'll tell you, Citizen Q is a wealthy SF businessman who lives in Presidio Heights, very close to where Paul Stine was murdered. I'll leave the details on how he became a suspect to Ed, since he is the one who can be credited for actually locating Citizen Q. However, I think Ed would also be the first to tell you that Q is not a very good suspect, and not just because of the DNA evidence, which didn't match Q's DNA. That, in and of itself, may not necessarily mean squat, because we can't be certain that the DNA that SFPD has in their possession is the Zodiac's DNA. However, Citizen Q freely and openly gave a sample of his DNA to SFPD for comparison which, in my opinion, speaks volumes about the man's culpability, or rather, lack there of, in the Zodiac crimes.

In other words, it's not as if SFPD obtained Q's DNA by way of the DA's office or a judge; rather, Citizen Q offered it, undoubtedly to have his name disassociated with the case once and for all. I can't say that I blame the guy, but the sad part is that it might not have worked out entirely to his satisfaction, as evidenced by your inquiry. But Tom is right, watch the show tonight on ABC; there is good info on Citizen Q, at least, all that really needs to be known.

I hope that was helpful.

By Mike J. Doe ( - on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 12:39 pm:

Thanks Scott,

The reason why i posted this is because I HAD no clue about this guy and was just brought into my attention last night. Aside from the ABC show that i'll be watching tonight, are there any websites with more into on this guy?

By Ed N. (Ed_N) ( - on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 07:53 pm:

Mike: whatever information there is on "Citizen Q" will be found here; there are no websites that I know of dedicated to him. Considering that "Q" has threatened to sue if his name is ever made public, I obviously can't include specific (or even many) details which could enable anyone and their grandma to duplicate my research, but I can mention what has already been made public.

In 1999, Mike Rodelli was interested in the possibility that Z might have written a letter to the editor using his real name or a pseudonym, so I started looking to see what I could find. I was half expecting to find a letter signed "Patricia Hautz," but another one caught my eye instead. I copied the letter and told Rodelli about it; I thought the name was contrived, but he knew who the guy was, and asked me to check further. It turned out that, much like suspect Robert Hunter Jr (one of the worst suspects ever developed in the case), "Q" lived in PH at the time, and was (and still is) a very wealthy businessman. I was able to get a small sample of his handwriting, but it didn't match Z's writing. After that, and considering his position and power, it didn't make any sense to me that he would risk all for a few cheap thrills as Z.

Rodelli kept pushing to research the guy and found many interesting parallels between "Q" and Z, and even though I found them fascinating at first, I eventually considered them to be of no more significance than the parallels between Hunter and Z, TK and Z, O'Hare and Z, or even Michael Roth and Z. He even turned up an old photo that showed "Q" was a dead ringer for Z back in the day, but then, a lot of suspects resemble or even look like the composite too. Rodelli finally produced a report, and he probably did 95% of the research; in October 1999, he came out to California, and we spoke with Lt. Bruton (then in charge of the case), and also Ken Narlow (who identified the real location of Zodiac Island for us). In April 2000, he visited again, and this time we spoke with NSD, but, once again, there was no interest, although the Chronicle wanted to do a story.

I lost interest after that, and was pretty much done with "Q" at that point anyway; Rodelli and I had a falling out over that, but I guess those things happen. He kept on it, and there was a story that was eventually published in October 2000 that mentioned "Q" (though not by name, of course). That's when we learned of his threat to sue, but no one ever had any intention of mentioning his name publically anyway. Last year, Primetime Thursday did their DNA show that compared Z to ALA, "Q" and another guy, and all were negative. Of course, there were explanations as to why ALA's DNA didn't match Z's, but, as far as I was concerned, my initial hunch was correct regarding "Q": the fact that he offered his DNA to be tested was proof to me that he had nothing to do with the Z crimes, because if he were Z, there's no way he would have freely given any DNA to compare to and possibly match any DNA extracted from Z's letters. That spoke volumes to me more than the negative results. I know that if I were Z and a suspect, they'd need a court order to get any DNA from me, and even then, I'd fight it until the day I died before they could test me.

That's pretty much the story as it happened; some started referring to him here on the message board as "the SFBM" (San Francisco businessman), but I started calling him "Citizen Q" as a classier term to identify him, after "Citizen Kane" and Q (one of my favorite characters on Star Trek: The Next Generation). Other than that, there's not much more that I can say about him...

By Brad ( - on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 05:34 am:

Ed wrote:

"I know that if I were Z and a suspect, they'd need a court order to get any DNA from me, and even then, I'd fight it until the day I died before they could test me."

Of course we all know that Ed IS Zodiac. Better get going on that court order, looks like he's going to fight!

By MikeR ( - on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 04:15 am:


I was minding my own business at 7 AM Eastern time yesterday, when I got an IM from Tom. I assumed that he must have been just coming in from a hard night on the town at 4 AM PDT. ;) He invited me to reply to Ed's post and I said that I would do so.

I read the post that Ed made in this thread. I have also read all of the other posts that he has made over the past few years about our work on the case. In general, I can say that he has been truthful in what he has stated, and I appreciate that. However, I do want to clarify some points, so that the readers of this site can truly understand the dynamics of what hapened.

1) In June 1999, I finally became convinced that ALA was a wannabe Zodiac suspect. I felt that he simply enjoyed playing around with the minds of the cops. His interview at Pinole is a clear example of this. (Art's biggest mistake, to my mind, is that he never fessed up in any interviews about what he did, to give himself some peace in his later years.) So I decided that I wanted to try to develop a new suspect---if I could! But where to begin after thirty years and being 3,000 miles from SF? It was a very, very daunting and intimidating task.

I ended up realizing that Zodiac was all about writing letters to the Editor of newspapers and commemorating anniversaries. I decided to look for a letter that would have predated the advent of Zodiac and which was written to commemorate the six-month anniversary of the LHR murders. (ABC stated these facts publicly and actually showed the letter, so I do not feel that I am compromising my suspect's privacy by restating this). So I wrote to EdN, with whom I had been corresponding for about six months (and with whom I felt comfortable sharing my original idea) and asked him to do me a favor.


By MikeR ( - on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 04:19 am:


The only reason I did not do my own research is that I did not know that I could. I had never done serious research before and was ignorant that the SF newspapers were available anywhere in the country through an interlibrary loan. So I laid out my idea to him and told him which newspapers to look in, the time frame, etc.

Therefore, while it was Ed who "discovered" the suspect, he was simply doing me a favor and carrying out something that I could not do myself. I gave Ed the map, put the "X" on it and gave him the shovel. He simply dug. I have to admit that I get a bit, as Don Fouke would say, "miffed" when Ed states that he "discovered" this suspect without laying out the fine print to the reader. I want to politely make it clear that the entire concept was my own original idea exclusively. This I can prove with my mass of email correspondence with Ed from June 1999 to about June 2000.

2) Once we developed a name, Ed and his friend Dan did contribute some important facts in the first few months of the work. (That work is now duly footnoted in the report that I send to the police.) However, as he states, I have done 95% of the work myself. This is because Ed voluntarily left me in June or July 2000. However, as Ed implied yesterday, he lost interest very quickly and essentially stopped doing serious research by the end of 1999. This hamstrung me because I needed a local researcher to dig in the files! The raw data is in the Bay Area, not New Jersey.

By MikeR ( - on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 04:21 am:


I do not want anyone to think that I pushed Ed out of the way and usurped his portion of the work. Ed pushed his portion of the work into my lap voluntarily and in doing so, disappointed and hurt me terribly. I wanted to work with Ed and enjoyed out working relationship in the early days of the research. I was always the one who tried, even when he sensed in late 1999 that I had lost Ed, to keep him going. I used to tell him that ALA was dead and would always be there to go back to if this suspect didn't pan out. Despite his reassurances that new research was just around the corner, he apparently would have none my efforts to convince him to keep digging. I did manage to keep him in the loop until the next summer.

3) The "small sample" of handwriting that Ed refers to is a script signature, not hand printing. It is therefore of no use in assessing the possibility that the man wrote any of the Z letters.

I only deal in facts. Everything I have stated here is, as I've said, backed up with a year's worth of email exchanges, so I know that there will be no argument from Ed over what I have just stated. I appreciate what he did early on. But Ed made a decision that the suspect was not worth researching. I respect that decision but want to make it very clear that the original idea was mine and that I am not, in any way, a usurper, lest anyone think that. I'm decidedly not that kind of person.

I am going to make a few brief comments to Scott Bullock. Scott, I don't know who you are and have never spoken to you in my life but my challenge to you is this: Use your own knowledge of the case to develop your own new suspect and put yourself on the firing line, as I have. It's easy to latch onto Allen. That's child’s play. See how far you get with your new suspect with the police, the media and, most importantly, the former detectives who worked the actual Z investigation. Then you can feel free to criticize and scoff at my work.


By alain ( - on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 04:52 am:

Concerning the san francisco businessman (sfb) nicknamed Q, i had the chance to been in touch with Mike R, i had found by myself his e mail and he always had the kindness to answer my many questions about the case. I want to point clearly that at no moment he gave me the SFB name, which i learn another way. Mike has always protected the legal/civil rights of his suspect. Sadly for me, I haven’t had the chance to see the full 25 pages report owned by Mike. I made my own research by other ways on SFB when i knew his name. Mike had only directing me in general aspects of this case. This introduction was only to clarify theses essentials points. I’am not Mike puppet.

I must said that it hurts me when i heard people think of SFB to be an unlikeable suspect. There are facts on him that can’t be distorted, people call them coincidences. Well i believe you can have one or two or three coincidences linked to a suspect, but when you have 25 pages of theses, statistically does it make sense to said that SFB is not a likeable suspect, because he was wealthy, and a nice guy with so much to loose ? If you are able to be interested in the fact that a dead ringer for the sketch lived in plain view of the park where occured the killing of Stine (the only which was not done in lover lane), and that after that you do your own research and that you discover certains things on SFB, some strange, some very chilling, i think you understand that i’m disappointed that the only arguments against the SFB credibility are his wealthiness, his public life, his gift of his dna (and we don’t know if the one which was tested was Zodiac own), because imho some facts on SFB are very disturbing, and even chilling .

By alain ( - on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 04:53 am:

part 2

Nobody destroy SFB factually (with alibis or things like that). What is opposed against him are only feelings. The facts still remained. SFB gave his DNA, sure. But he has also said that he would sue anyone who dare to say his name. With his wealthiness and support, i think he has nothing to fear from rumours, but by keeping his id secret, it preserve him also to be investigated at will like the others suspects.

M. rodelli (and at a time Ed) had done a tremendous work on the suspect. I dont said (and Mike R do the same) that he is zodiac at 100% but the facts that link him to Z are unparrareled for me by the others suspects. And there are no testimony against him, like cheney against Allen, there are only facts. SFB has lot to loose, yes I agree, but all the killers have a lot to loose (liberty or even life). I wish that one day SFB will be treated fairly (like the other suspects) may it that this case was totally destroyed by absolute proof or that he was uncovered and that some points put to lights. And respects to Mike for his tremendous work.(even if one day it occured that SFB is innocent, at least consider with respect the work done) And greetings to Ed to have helped.

Ps : don’t forget that retired officers who were in touch with case were very interested in Q SFB. So, all should made their opinion, but for me if Q is innocent, we should all be very frigthened that all of us can one day present 25 pages of facts with a unresolved crime. But please stop to reduce SFB as a simple dead ringer who live near PH.

By MikeR ( - on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 06:05 am:


I wrote:

"I was always the one who tried, even when he sensed in late 1999 that I had lost Ed, to keep him going."

I obviously meant to say that it was I who sensed that Ed had lost interest.

Also, it is to my recollection that the handwriting that Ed referred to was the signature on a form. If I forgot something else that he sent me that was hand printed, I am sure that he will correct this oversight.

The last issue is that even though Ed states that he lost interest in the suspect, I still fear that some people may see me as a usurper. Here is why:

In the ABC show, they state (using a narrator) that "Rodelli sifted through the letters" (or something like that), etc. This is not what I said to them. I do not mention Ed by name to the media, since I never wanted to put him in the firing line of a lawsuit over a suspect in which he has no interest. But I did state that a "former colleague" of mine, or something to that effect, actually found the letter.

ABC probably used the "KISS principle" and stated that I was the one who physically found the letter for a better flow to the story. I certainly had no hand in what the did with my interview.

There are some other small typos in the large post that I won't bother to correct. Hey, I'm only human. ;)


By Scott_Bullock ( - on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 01:46 pm:

"Scott, I don't know who you are and have never spoken to you in my life but my challenge to you is this: Use your own knowledge of the case to develop your own new suspect and put yourself on the firing line, as I have."

I can't believe that proxy is bringing me into this discussion. Yes, Mike, I have been critical of your work, but it has nothing to do with Ed or any biases that I may have received from him. "Citizen Q" is a bad suspect regardless of what has been uncovered or said about him. Don't make it sound as if I'm calling you an as*hole because you pursued a genuine lead; I am not. But don't think me belligerent for taking you to task on an entirely unsophisticated suspect that has been needlessly developed. That 'Citizen Q' was taken seriously in the Primetime special, on the other hand, is entirely significant in terms of the money and man-hours it exhausted that ultimately makes the Zodiac case even more problematic. To put it another way, Primetime’s money should have been spent on "excluding or exonerating" Bruce Davis, Ted Kaczynski, Marshall, or any other number of suspects who were more deserving of the attention that was paid to your suspect and "Collins." For God's sake, we may as well have had Kilgore's suspect highlighted. So please don't take my statements and criticisms on a personal level [as you exemplified that you were capable of doing on Kelleher's site], and instead realize that I'm only being critical of your work, and not you as a person. I've nothing against you, Mike, but if you think you can badger me into believing that "CQ" is a good suspect, you're wrong, just like you're wrong if you think I believe that Allen was the Zodiac, because I don't. Rather, I believe that Allen is the best suspect of those that are known. I'm confidant that you are more than capable of distinguishing the difference.

By Tom_Voigt ( - on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 05:17 pm:

I have a few problems with considering Q a viable Zodiac suspect, but the main problem is this: Had he lived elsewhere in October 1969 rather than in Presidio Heights, would anyone even consider him to be worth looking at?

In 1969, Q resembled a sketch of Zodiac that is probably not all that accurate in the first place, not to mention that thousands of other men in the area also looked like it. He had no logical motive for such criminal behavior. In fact, Q's background is the exact opposite of what criminal profiles of Zodiac say he would be like. Q was a well known, high-profile multi-millionaire businessman. No history of violence.

All that aside, I simply find it very hard to believe that Zodiac would kill someone and then walk to his own residence, especially since he had a history of using a vehicle for his crimes and had demonstrated knowledge of investigative techniques police use, such as bloodhounds.

By Ed N. (Ed_N) ( - on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 01:27 am:

Mike: while I certainly did condense everything, I don't believe I've ever denied that it was your idea and that you suggested the timeframe and places to look; in the interests of keeping your idea as vague as possible in order to prevent others from duplicating our work and discovering and harrassing "Q," I did leave out specific facts. However, I had forgotten that they pretty much gave away the exact date and newspaper in the original broadcast last October (and if you'll note the time of my post, it was 2 full hours before the rebroadcast of the show), otherwise I would have included that as well.

I think the thing that, to be quite honest, really pissed me off is that never once did I see in print or hear on TV anything about my small part in the initial research, and that, while you did tell me where to look, I was the actual discoverer of "Q." Now that you have told me that you did mention me, though not by name because of the possibility of a lawsuit by "Q," I not only appreciate that, but see now that I had obviously been edited out of the picture by the powers-that-be and not you.

I also appreciate your making clear that you did not "usurp" anything from me, something which I also have mentioned several times; I lost interest, pure and simple, and left it to you by default.

You are quite right about the writing sample, it was a handwritten signature and not printed, but, regardless, nothing about it resembled Z's printing. Perhaps I should have mentioned that also, but, once again, I was being maybe a little too vague with the story (while I'm not paranoid about a lawsuit, I do nevertheless want to remain cautious at all times).

While I am certainly impressed with what you have found and noted in your early reports, and am still fascinated by the parallels etc, my gut feeling (or whatever one wishes to call it) is that these are nothing more than coincidence (or, since he's now a Z suspect, zynchronicity). And it's not that I feel that ALA is Z either; one thing that I've attempted to do these last 4+ years is to remain neutral on the subject, and have even pointed out things that refute the ALA=Z theory. In any case, I'm glad that everyone has a chance to hear your side of the story now.

By Tom_Voigt ( - on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 02:14 am:

Mike, in Ed's defense, he has always credited you regarding the Q deal during our private conversations. On the other hand, Ed, I can tell you from personal experience that even if Mike mentioned you during his interviews (and I have no reason to believe he didn't), no TV producer or newspaper reporter is likely to include your name in their story just because; it would likely distract the viewer or reader, as the theory goes.

By Stromjunkie ( on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 06:03 am:

Ed, I appreciate your contribution to this case. It appears you and Mike R worked as a good team. Good luck in your future research. I hope to aspire to attain your level of expertise, but of course my website is challenge enough for me. I can't even get the mission statement MP3 to play properly!

By MikeR ( - on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 06:35 am:

Hi All-

Ed, I do recognize your role in the work. I thought we were partners in this and was very sad and disappointed when you dropped out. You can do great research, as evidenced by the stuff you posted recently about the Hunter mansion. It has not been easy doing the research from this end. As I said, I footnote the facts that you and Dan supplied in the report.

While we were on the subject of the media yesterday, I also did not have any part in Zoellner not interviewing you. We both met him and he had our individual contact info. I did not know who he had interviewed until the article came out. Obviously, I was very disappoionted that he interviewed Bruton, who we had cut out of the loop in November 1999! He got to take potshots at the research, when he was not even in possession of all of it in August/Sept. 2000, when he was probably interviewed.

By MikeR ( - on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 06:38 am:


As for Scott, I guess that I have to apologize for taking your criticism of my work too personally. But there is one thing that you have to understand: This work went from being fun and exciting to being extremely, extremely stressful.

The stress comes from many sources. First, I am dealing with a man who could sue me for more money that I knew existed in the world. Second, I am unable to put my evidence up against what is known about Allen, Kane, Ted, Davis, etc., in a public forum. So how can I convince you or anyone else of the kind of case I make?

So if cracks sometimes appear in the facade, please understand why.


By Scott_Bullock ( - on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 08:23 am:

Mike, I can imagine that your position is stressful, and I also understand your plight better than you may realize. I know who "Citizen Q" is, and am also aware of much [probably not all] of the circumstantial evidence that has been developed against him. I, like you, would also love to talk about his status as a suspect in greater detail and in a public forum. But, also like you, I understand the sensitive nature of the subject as well as the precariousness of discussing the situation publicly. Therefore, when I talk about CQ, it is typically done in a general way; "CQ is a bad suspect" instead of "CQ is a bad suspect because..." See where I'm going with this? I mean, you didn't really think I'd say the things I've said about Citizen Q's status as a Z suspect without doing some homework first, did you?

At any rate, thanks for the apology, and I apologize also if I've ever come across as crass or mean spirited in anything that I have written on the subject; my posts are much less venomous, in most instances, than is actually intended. I guess I'm just not the type to frequently use euphemisms. I know we've never met, but I'm sure that if we did we'd get along just fine, but it doesn't mean that I have to like Citizen Q as a suspect. I sincerely hope that I've added clarity to not only my position, but the situation that forms it, as well.

By MikeR ( - on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 08:38 am:

Hi Tom-

The notion of Z disappearing close to the man's home is a somewhat troubling, if exciting, one for me. What if Z theoretically looked like Allen and had been seen by Vallejo cops disappearing a few doors from 32 Fresno Street? What would people then say about Allen? Would they use that sighting to EXCLUDE Allen or to say, "Case closed: How could it be anyone else?", etc.? I think I know the answer. The double-standard exists for me simply because my guy is wealthy. I do admit that it is odd that Z would do such a thing with the SFPD cops eyeballing him, if he lived in the immediate vicinity. However, I have a counterargument.

IF it were the intention of Z to disappear into the darkness of the park, why did he eschew entering it at the closest point to the crime scene--at the end of Cherry? He knew that he had been being watched by someone at that window and that presumably SFPD would be notified and told of his direction of escape. What compelling reason did he have for allowing himself to be subject to being seen walking down the street? I can't think of a reason for him not to have entered the park, is such were his plan.

My statement to you is that since Z was seen walking on Jackson Street, it was not his intention to head into the park at all, since he did not do so at Cherry or Maple. So where was he headed? To a car, as MK and others indicate? If so, how did he leave the area and still provide details of the search? You can't have it all ways. He either left or he didn't, and if he left, he could not have provided detials of the search.

One other thing is that I have learned that it was not a "police search" that night. It was a massive manhunt. When Capt. Marty Lee said that a mouse couldn't have escaped attention in the park, he was not exaggerating in any way. I know this from first-hand sources.


By Scott_Bullock ( - on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 09:32 am:

Mike, you wrote, "My statement to you [Tom] is that since Z was seen walking on Jackson Street, it was not his intention to head into the park at all, since he did not do so at Cherry or Maple. So where was he headed? To a car, as MK and others indicate? If so, how did he leave the area and still provide details of the search? You can't have it all ways. He either left or he didn't, and if he left, he could not have provided detials of the search."

You see; this is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Why are you ignoring the more probable scenario that Z had his own vehicle waiting in the neighborhood, got in it, drove away, and then observed the ensuing manhunt, which it most definitely was, from a "safe distance"? Was Z wearing a disguise, or not? He claims that he did, but who knows? Z gets in his car, disposes of any disguise he may have had, stuck around long enough to get an additional adrenaline rush from the chaos of the scene as it continued to unfold, and then drives away. Maybe he even returns to the scene in his vehicle to have a peek, playing the 'Hey, I'm just driving through..." scenario. All of these are good and relative arguments as to why the Z didn't live in PH at the time of Stine's murder. Combine this with the fact that there is a wealth of evidence to suggest that the Zodiac most likely resided somewhere in the 'north bay area' and then there is plenty of reason to believe that Z didn't reside in Presidio Heights. That the Zodiac may have been living in Presidio Heights when he murdered Stine is a good proposition, but it's not the most probable one; Ockham's razor tells me otherwise.

By MikeR ( - on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 09:47 am:

Hi Scott-

How far did he drive away to be able to view the manhunt and from what vantage point? How could he "drive away" and see the hunt at the same time? He was able to look into a park that was completely blocked by houses on the south side (and the change in terrain as you head down the hill behind the houses to the park) and yet be safe in knowing that the risks he was taking to simply observe the search would not ruin his day by having him get caught for his troubles. And for what? So he could rub it into SFPD? Would the risk of sitting in a parked car in the midst of a huge police presence (after you barely escaped SFPD once that night by pure luck) be worth the reward?

Here is something that I'll share with you: The search that night went as far west as about ten blocks away, and undoubtedly as far to the east, too. I have a friend and colleague who is a former member of the judiciary, who was visiting a friend near Park Presidio on October 11, 1969. He saw policemen crawling through the bushes behind the apartment that night WAY to the west of PH! This is eyewitness testimony. The manhunt was MASSIVE, as I said.

I am placing Z somewhere specific, as you know, with a safe view of the park. Can you give me an idea of where this safe vantage point was that you are talking about? You have me at a great disadvantage. I have no chance to critique your idea because it is so vague. No offense, but give me some specifics as to why your is "the more probable scenario".

I'll debate this with you rationally. Promise. ;)


By alain ( - on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 09:56 am:

In answer to the Tom post,

In my opinion even if the SFBM have lived elsewhere in 1969, it still have be interesting to investigate on him. Like i said before, don’t resume this suspect on this simple fact that he lives near PH. There’s a lot more than this (and even ED confirm it even it he think that is only coincidences) .

Moreover the type of what if question to my point of view is hazardous because the facts don’t lies and are not distorted:

1)he live in very close vicinity of the crime scene. It’s a fact.

2) He look like the sketch. Even if the sketch is not 100 % accurate, this SFBM looks like an official police sketch. It’s a fact too.

Moreover, if the police had knew in 1969 that a dead ringer for the sketch lived in plain view to the park, and that 2 police officers have seen the killer just a few feet from his house, don’t you think it would have been wise to investigate his alibis for this night. Just in case of… Maybe some ex policeman could answer me if they wouldn't have investigate even lightly.

By alain ( - on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 09:57 am:

Put it in another way, the fact is that the only time Z choose to kill in a town (outside lover lane), it appears that this crime occur just near the residence of a dead ringer for the sketch, who present 25 pages of stranges (even scary) things which could link him, one way or another to the zodiac case. I guess he’s the most unlucky man in the world because of all the places in SF, zodiac choose to kill right here… Is somebody could honestly tell me that you could always find such a guy in all the streets of san francisco no matter where Zodiac has chosen to stricke, you could always had a dead ringer for the sketch who possess so many zynchronicities ?. And i don’t restrain to the sketch.

This SFBM don’t possess a criminal background. It’s true. I had posted a some weeks ago, the story of a very nice guy, very clever who kill a young children for the unique reason that he has, at one time chosen to do it. He has no motives, no background for this. If you read sites like The crime library, you’ll discover that many killers don’t seem to possess a background that turn them in these type of monsters. Some have it and some don’t have it. That’s all.

Another time, the only thing that people oppose to the businessman is a feeling (gut feeling). Does it sound sane to discard him only because of a feeling ? everybody must made his opinion. For my part i don’t think so. The fact is that i would like that one day, people present a strong case to defend him with factual facts. Since many things must remain hidden on this businessman, i guess mike fight the suspicion of the others with one hand tied on his back. But what he had in hands have raised the interest of people which were linked to the case. For me it speak by itself. But I respect the opinions of others, and if one day i had the absolute proof of the businessman innocence, i would go to him on my knees and ask him to pardon me to have one time consider him a good suspect. for what is worth...

By Scott_Bullock ( - on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 10:43 am:

Yes, the manhunt was massive, and I'd imagine that those searchlights that existed in the Presidio, Julius Kahn playground, and the PH residences that night, but were curiously never mentioned by Z in any of the letters, could be seen from quite some distance, especially if one knew where to look. Zodiac, in my opinion, doesn't acknowledge anything that couldn't be readily ascertained given his position. Given your logic in this specific situation, Hunter should therefore be considered at least as viable as Citizen Q. [Well, maybe not. But there was a R. Hunter who lived in PH at the time.] There is nothing specific or general in the known evidence that suggests that the only way Z could have perpetrated the Stine murder was if he was living in Presidio Heights. On the other hand, it's very possible that Z had his car in the vicinity and drove away when he felt it appropriate, and in the time between ascertained all of the information that he needed to write his subsequent letter. There are plenty of ways for Z to know all that was needed to know about certain details of the manhunt on the 11th without having actually lived in the area.

By MikeR ( - on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 12:00 pm:

Hi Scott-

Are you saying that since Z didn't mention the searchlights, he did not actually view the search? If that is now your position, then it doesn't matter where Z might have been, he did not view the search at all, from a car, house or otherwise.

Z described fire trucks masking the sound of the patrol cars (11/9 letter). Weren't the searchlights on these trucks? I believe so. That is why the fire trucks were called in by SFPD in the first place, to my recollection. So by inference, he must have seen the lights, even if he didn't mention them. In the time period from 10/11 to 11/8, he could have read an article about the fire trucks being present with their searchlights. I do not know how the search was covered in the press. This is the main issue with respect to the fire trucks.

The real question is whether or not he made up the details of the Stine letter. To indicate that motorcycles were actually holding "road races", of all things, seems to me to be a pretty obscure thing to make up. If he had simply read in the papers that motorcycles were in the area and stated that fact, that would be one thing. But his reference reeks of something that he actually saw. That being the case, he had to be close by during the search. The Chronicle article from 10/12 makes no mention of motorcycles but I do not have articles from the other papers.

I place him in a home overlooking the search area. Where do you place him in his car, safe from the police crawling throughout the area? If he were too far away, he could not hear the motorcycles.

BTW, I stand corrected if I gave you the impression that I feel that Z had to live in PH in order to have killed Stine. But Marty Lee commented that Z seemed to have an intimate knowledge of PH (and at night, to boot), the type of knowledge that a guy like Allen, living in Vallejo, would not logically possess. It is easy to case a neighborhood if you live there. You do it by walking the dog.


By Tom_Voigt ( - on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 02:19 pm:

MikeR wrote:
"What if Z theoretically looked like Allen and had been seen by Vallejo cops disappearing a few doors from 32 Fresno Street? What would people then say about Allen? Would they use that sighting to EXCLUDE Allen or to say, "Case closed: How could it be anyone else?", etc.? I think I know the answer."

People in Vallejo don't traverse their city on foot, unless they live in the heart of downtown. SF is much different. In Allen's neighborhood, especially that time of night, if you see someone on foot the likelihood is great they live nearby. Not so in SF. Also, Vallejo doesn't see the influx of outsiders/tourists as SF, especially a sleepy neighborhood such as Allen's.

MikeR wrote:
"I can't think of a reason for him not to have entered the park, is such were his plan."

I can't think of a reason Zodiac would have planned to escape either in the park or his nearby residence, uness he wanted to get caught!

MikeR wrote:
"One other thing is that I have learned that it was not a "police search" that night. It was a massive manhunt."

I'm not aware of any details regarding the police search that Zodiac couldn't have pulled out of the newspapers, off of television, etc.
In fact, his initial letter after the Stine murder was dated October 13 and contained only a brief mention of the use of motorcycles by the police. It wasn't until November 9 -- almost a month later -- that Zodiac went into any detail. By then, the world knew Zodiac was Stine's killer and many stories had focused on the events of October 11. Zodiac could have closely followed those stories -- as these types apparently do -- and had all the info he needed to embarass SFPD by claiming he was in the area and they stupidly missed him.

By alain ( - on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 03:14 pm:

hi to all,

I read all the comments on this post. Well we all had our opinion about the sfbm. but let me ask the question more accurately than i do in my previous posts. If Fouke, just one hour (for example) after the murder had come to Toschi and said that he had seen the suspect (or a personn who look like the description of the suspect) come near a house. Did toschi could have said i dont give a f..k .
I think no.
If the police have made a research in the area and they stumbled on the SFBM and realized that he was a dead ringer for their sketch, and were able to realize that he live in plain view of the park. Did they could reasonnably said it’s not him, never mind .
Another time it’s no. They should for the least conduct a light investigation, questionning the man for knowing where he was this night. Don’t you think so ?
Now imagine that they had searched the past of this man, and realize that there was certain things (in despite of his notoriety and of his wealthiness) that don’t stick, or in another way that were strange. And they began to accumulate certain things. Do you really think they would have said another time it isn’t worth the pain to investigate . Another time for me it’s no.

By alain ( - on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 03:16 pm:

Now i don’t say that the SFBM is the Zodiac. but i’m sure that the police would have investigate him at the same title than the other suspects. And it’s what mike did 30 years after.
And you all seem to focalize on this point (that he live near Presidio). Well sure this is a very interesting point for me. But, and i repeat it, it’s not the biggest point with him !!! I’m honest if there was only these two facts concerning him, maybe it will be coincidences. But you can’t erase the other facts. I don’t know 100% of this man, but there are others facts that are chilling and can’t be discuted here. But the facts that they can’t be discuted doesn’t mean they don’t exist…
And for the profiling of Z who doesn’t describe the same type of profile that Q possess, In the recent Sniper attack in Washington, the profile generally admitted was a white man. Or it occured that the sniper was in fact 2 black mens. Limits of profiling in my point of view.

By MikeR ( - on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 03:43 pm:

Hi Tom-

I was speaking theoretically about Allen, so I believe that I have license to invent any scenario I want to propose. The bottom line is that all practical considerations aside, had Zodiac "theoretically" killed Stine two blocks from 32 Fresno and the police went down Fresno and saw a man looking like Z walking into Allen's front yard but failed to follow up (as the police in SF did), there would be a huge clamor about Allen simply "having" to be Z.

Are you really going to argue this point?

As for what was in Z's mind and where he was headed, this is a difficult one to argue. I feel that the simplest explanation is that he watched from a "safe vantage point overlooking the scene". What or where that was is up for grabs. We know that the police presence was massive and that the streets were not a safe place for him that night, especially if he is being truthful when he says that he was only 150 feet from the motorcycles. I still feel, and will always feel, that if his intent was to go into the park, he would have done so immediately and quickly, so as to escape detection in the darkness it provided.

By MikeR ( - on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 03:45 pm:


Look at the 11/9 letter. He mentions no less than three times in a short span, as well as twice in the portion that he wanted them to print, that he was either in the park or headed towards it. If this was actually his intent, why was he walking down the street and not already in the park? Doth he protesteth too much, and did he want to create the mental picture in the eye of the reader (i.e, the police) that he did, in fact, escape through the park, when he did not? Did he have a guilty conscience and not want them to focus on what Fouke should have told them about his sighting? Was it a misdirection?

If he had left in a car, why didn't he just mock them for not seeing him casually driving away right under their noses? Why didn't he tell them where he was watching from--where he had parked his car--if he had stayed around? Wouldn't that be good for a laugh?


By Tom_Voigt ( - on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 03:56 pm:

MikeR wrote:
"The bottom line is that all practical considerations aside, had Zodiac "theoretically" killed Stine two blocks from 32 Fresno and the police went down Fresno and saw a man looking like Z walking into Allen's front yard but failed to follow up (as the police in SF did), there would be a huge clamor about Allen simply "having" to be Z."

Sure, if Zodiac was seen entering Allen's house after a murder that would be rather damning evidence. Who would argue that? However, in the case of the Stine murder, that's not what happened.

In a 1969 report, Foukes apparently claimed that he had last seen the subject walking east on Jackson and turning north on Maple. That's a far cry from the idea that Foukes had spotted Zodiac entering the front door of a specific house elsewhere, which Foukes apparently never revealed until he was interviewed by a TV show in 1989.

I tend to believe the version of events Foukes presented in 1969.

By Tom_Voigt ( - on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 04:17 pm:

One more thing: Even if we are to believe the version of events Foukes presented in 1989 rather than the version of events he presented in 1969, on ABC's Primetime Thursday Foukes took John Quinones to the place where he last saw Zodiac. It wasn't Q's house.

By Mike J. Doe ( - on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 04:37 pm:

Now I don't know much about "Q" which is why I started this thread. I was wondering, if Citizen Q looked like the composite and lived in PH, why wasn't he ever questioned? I know that a lot of people can resemble the composite but I think it could narrow it down for someone who looks like the composite and live in PH. I mean I'm pretty sure if Q is well known people would have been suspicious of him since he resembled the composite.

By Tom_Voigt ( - on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 05:02 pm:

I don't know that Q wasn't questioned. However, assuming he wasn't, it was probably because SFPD didn't have any reason to believe he was involved. I mean, why would a successful, multi-millionaire businessman kill a cab driver and then walk a couple blocks to his own house? I'm still waiting for a logical explanation for that one...

Aside from that, the department never had much faith in the composite drawing of Zodiac to begin with...not to mention that Q looked like Hugh Beaumont. I suppose if the witnesses had described Zodiac as being quite suave, Q would have been brought in right away.

By Ed N. (Ed_N) ( - on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 12:24 am:

Tom wrote:

On the other hand, Ed, I can tell you from personal experience that even if Mike mentioned you during his interviews (and I have no reason to believe he didn't), no TV producer or newspaper reporter is likely to include your name in their story just because; it would likely distract the viewer or reader, as the theory goes.

I figured that Zoellner purposely left me out of his story in October 2000, since I was there during the interview and told him my part; I didn't figure on Primetime ignoring Mike's mention of me too, but you're right, it would "distract" the audience (as I'm sure the producers believe). But I was still pissed off though, lol, but that's in the past now.

As for alternative ideas as to where Z might have hidden his car, he could very well have parked it somewhere on Jackson, and made like he was entering a house as Fouke and Zelms drove by, then ducked into his car and took off, only to return minutes later to watch events unfold from another vantage point, perhaps from somewhere along Pacific or West Pacific, several blocks east of where he was last seen.

Or, as Bill Beeman suggested, perhaps Z parked his car on the fire road just off West Pacific, not far from the stairway at the end (technically the beginning) of Cherry. Why would he have headed east down Jackson instead? So that potential eyewitnesses don't connect him to his car; he could easily have walked another block or two, or even slipped between some houses and through someone's backyard to get to his car.

An idea I had many years ago was that Z hid in a manhole I found in the park; of course, that would have required some preparation, as Z would have scouted the area for a hiding place prior to the crime, and would also have required a certain tool(s) to lift the cover in the first place.

As for Q being questioned: perhaps he was by a cop that night who, for whatever reason, didn't see the composite after it was produced. Or perhaps he did and didn't think it looked like Q... and before anyone objects to that suggestion, might I remind you all that the two cops who helped Richard Allen Davis get his car out of the ditch on Pythian Road just hours after he kidnapped Polly Klaas did see Jeanne Boylan's composite, and, despite the fact that it looked exactly like Davis (it looked as if she simply copied a photo of him), they claimed after he was arrested that they didn't think the sketch resembled him! Despite the fact that it might as well have been an actual photgraph!

Anyway, just some devil's advocate's ideas to think about...

By MikeR ( - on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 04:30 am:


I can tell you that I've spoken to people who know, and he was never a suspect until 1999. His name never came up until I called and emailed Bruton with info in July 1999. Since SFPD had no contact with him for the ABC show that I know of (the DNA was taken by ABC, not SFPD), he has never been questioned, except for whatever questions ABC may have asked him.


By alain ( - on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 11:21 pm:

I was surprised by what you said. If iresume it well, you think that it would be a damn evidence if a man looking like Allen was spotted near a crime scene. And i’m agree with you. Where i disagree is the fact that when this thing occured to this SFBM, it mean absolutely nothing for you. You end your sentence by saying it dont happen to Allen . True, like it is true that the man spotted in the PH look like a twin to this sfbm. According to me, if a thing like that is good with a suspect, it surely be good with the others. In another way, it would have been a damn evidence against Allen, why it wasn’t a good evidence with the sfbm.

I was surprised too when you said the Z sketch is of no use. Well 3 witnesses at first and after that 2 cops seen the same man. Well ? I think that if the sfpd consider it useless, they wouldn’t have made it public. They would surely have use it in private but would not have taken the risk to show it to the public for the risk to be flooded by public calls who think they knew the man. Like you i believe that this sketch has his limit, but it remain useful. btw johns have recognized the man who kidnapp her in the official sketch (but maybe she was not abducted by Z).

By alain ( - on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 11:28 pm:

You also said that you’re awaited a logical explanation for the sfbm behavior. Well i m await the same concerning allen. I mean why a man who intend to become one of the most feared and elusive killer of the usa, would ever take the risk to reveal his master plan to one of his friends with the hope that he will remain silent forever even when he see Z killing spree. Even in France in 70s we have heard of Zodiac !!! hard for me to believe that cheney don’t heard before us oceans away. it would have been a deadly gamble no ?

At last, yes it wasn’t the sfbm house that Z approached. But does it make sense for you that whoever he was, after killing stine, he was surprise to see a police car come near him without seeming to purchase him. So maybe it was better for him to act quietly as a resident who came home.i'm Sure than it would be a more reasonnable attitude than to run like a mad in the streets. And it works still Z is still at large.
For Ed, i don’t think that if Z was hiding in a man hole he could have avoided the dogs. In my opinion. we use dogs in the french customs and they are able to tracks people hiding in near hermetically sealed containers so a man hole would be no difficulty for them.

By Tim Allen ( - on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 06:05 am:

HE took of his coveralls and placed them in a plastic bag,then hid or even left. he could of gotten details of the search by simply asking around"hey what happened here last night"? He may have even asked the kids that were watching him from the window?That way he would know for sure if his disguise worked.So if he did disguise himself when he did his thing then the fact that
citizen Q resembled the composite drawing means nothing realy.Just a thought.

By MS ( - on Tuesday, August 05, 2003 - 08:15 pm:

Contrary to what seems to be prevailing wisdom, Q's status and prestige would have emboldened him. This would be the quintessential example of someone "above suspicion". It's similar to the authorities' responses to O'Hare - PhD.'s aren't serial killers.
Yes, Q would have had much to lose, but this is all relative. The amount of money in your bank account is not proportional to the degree to which you value your life or freedom. A man of lesser means would usually place as high a premium on them. But, as he gained greater and greater infamy, we call recognize the increased boldness of the killer. It would seem apt for him to walk to his home after the most daring of them all, to watch the aftermath from his home. This person believed he was indeed shielded by some power from capture. Perhaps it was his status in the city he mocked and terrorized.
His readiness to provide DNA is dutifully noted, and I would like a response from Mr. Rodelli on this point.
As a final note, this suspect was co-producing a motion picture around the time the "Exorcist letter" appeared. Just found it interesting, considering the talk of Zodiac being a film buff.