This article was written by Alex Lewis (Welsh Chappie), whose own site detailing Zodiac suspect Lawrence Kane, can be found here.
Allegans contraria non est audiendus - 'One who makes Contradictory Statements is NOT to be Heard.' Latin Law Maxim!
The Title of this Article are in speech marks because these are the direct words quoted by SFPD Patrol Officer: Donald Fouke. He is using these words to deny His admitting to another individual that He had, indeed, stopped and briefly questioned a White Male Subject on Jackson Street. Now the rebuttal He makes comes after this other individual claims Fouke had admitted to Him He actually had stopped a Un-Sub that night and this other individual isn't just Average Joe somebody, either. No, this counter claim or accusation placed at Fouke's feet that He is publicly lying comes directly from One Armond Pelissetti, employed by The SFPD Himself at equal and same rank as His fellow cop Fouke.
The Title of this Article are in speech marks because these are the direct words quoted by SFPD Patrol Officer: Donald Fouke. He is using these words to deny His admitting to another individual that He had, indeed, stopped and briefly questioned a White Male Subject on Jackson Street. Now the rebuttal He makes comes after this other individual claims Fouke had admitted to Him He actually had stopped a Un-Sub that night and this other individual isn't just Average Joe somebody, either. No, this counter claim or accusation placed at Fouke's feet that He is publicly lying comes directly from One Armond Pelissetti, employed by The SFPD Himself at equal and same rank as His fellow cop Fouke.
Allegans contraria non est audiendus - 'One who makes Contradictory Statements is NOT to be Heard.' Latin Law Maxim!
The Title of this Article are in speech marks because these are the direct words quoted by SFPD Patrol Officer: Donald Fouke. He is using these words to deny His admitting to another individual that He had, indeed, stopped and briefly questioned a White Male Subject on Jackson Street. Now the rebuttal He makes comes after this other individual claims Fouke had admitted to Him He actually had stopped a Un-Sub that night and this other individual isn't just Average Joe somebody, either. No, this counter claim or accusation placed at Fouke's feet that He is publicly lying comes directly from One Armond Pelissetti, employed by The SFPD Himself at equal and same rank as His fellow cop Fouke.
Well, considering Pelissetti (Left) is not indirectly or implying that Officer Fouke is lying, He is direct and to the point: "However, what Officer Fouke told Me and what He wrote in that scratch do not match." In other words, Don is lying in the public retelling of His encountering the Mystery WMA. While yes, it maybe true to say that Don has never wavered nor been contradictory as to the WMA's descriptive detail.
'White Male, 35 - 45 years of age. Navy blue Parka type jacket zipped part the way up. Rusty color pleated pants/trousers with tan color type of engineering style boot. Crew cut with receding hairline, which was light in color & possibly greying at rear.
Now, straight away if you were new here and heard that as a description of a spotted suspect you'd likely assume, rightly so, that this is a description coming from a person who had a very good and close proximity view of the said subject and that given the color of each and every garment given by witness, the said witness would have been viewing Un-Sub while the Un-Sub was under lighted conditions for a prolonged period (30 seconds or more) and that given the witness can describe the v shaped front hairline that is receding plus the back of this mans head appearing to be going grey, this witness must almost surely have been stood right in front of our Un-Sub before The Un-Sub turned and walked away thus allowing for the witness to observe "Ahh-ha! Greying at the rear!"
If told: "Well actually, no. This description came from a 5, 10, maybe 15 seconds tops sighting where the witness passed by subject without stopping but is viewing this from within a vehicle that is in continual motion on street, at Night, and subject is walking down sidewalk going under from illuminated by the street-lights to,as Fouke put it: "Walking in the shadow of the trees at the time..." with this initial 'Sighting' happening with the witness and Un-Sub being 75 yards distance apart, at Night, in the shadow of the trees and then offering us the color of this individuals shoes, the Receding V shaped 'Widows Peak' Hairline afront the Crew Cut, with light color hair with possible red tint in it that certainly was going grey but only at the rear of Subjects head" then You, the new comer to the case, would likely struggle to accept even that this is possible as it simply sounds so implausible.
I, and it's my stance only, would contend that it sounds so unbelievable simply because. . . . That's exactly what it is.
It's an accurate and true description He is giving I do believe, but one He gives after an encounter with the suspect that happens in a 'Face to Face' scenario, just as The Widow of Eric Zelms stated Her late Husband had told Her it happened.... as it just so happens. Donald has been forced to admit to visually seeing such an individual, Zodiac Himself has made sure We know at least this much truth! Fouke and Co. failed to even mention seeing anyone what-so-ever on Jackson street that night, A fact omitted that didn't go unnoticed by the Killer who quickly writes about it having happened thus forcing the Authorities to admit at least that it even happened! But, for whatever reason, Fouke will not admit to ever stopping this same man & verbally asking Him anything. Why admit to seeing Zodiac, thus affirming that the Zodiac is telling the truth about You and Your Dpt. concealing this incident yet adamantly denying the second part about actually asking The Un-Sub anything at all...I can't work that out!
For Me, You either refute and deny the whole claim made by Zodiac, or if You are to concede He be telling the truth and outing You and Your agency for concealing A Truth then You admit and be truthful about the event as a whole. What I don't understand at all is a response that says: "Ok, Z has forced our hand here so We will admit that yes, an Officer visually spotted Him, but We shall deny the verbal exchange claim and suggest this did not happen!" I suppose the Dpt. were forced, begrudgingly, into admitting to even encountering Him in the first place so maybe they were willing to concede to the basic bare minimum but not anything more than this. Fouke contesting that He got this detailed description via a 5 to 10 second bypassing of a person in whom, He states, he pays almost no attention to after observing He's White, this is, I contend, simply laughable!
Now, Many will and many have, and continue to do so, jump to the defence of this witness simply because He is a cop and has a badge! A Badge He no doubt is wearing while He gave this description. However, this cop failed to even mention seeing this WMA that evening until offending Zodiac write a kinda "Oh yeah, by the way....did i mention 2 cops did pull the goof..,.." He, the Criminal Offender We need to rely on in this instance to bring forth the truth, not The SFPD! The Offender pulls the Dpt. out from under the bush of concealment to force them to acknowledge a huge goof and error made that night by making them clarify that a cop car did pull up and one of the two cops occupying it did, as He claimed, call the offender over to themselves where they would briefly question him doing so 'Face to Face'.
To end I shall post a few Maxims of Law relevant to this post above:
- Gross negligence is held equivalent to intentional wrong.
- Misconduct binds its own authors. It is a never-failing axiom that everyone is accountable only for his own offence or wrong.
- Punishment is due if the words of an oath be false.
- Where there be uncertainty or opposing verdicts, the more credible are to be believed. It does not matter how many people believe a lie, it is still a lie!"
Misconduct binds its own authors. It is a never-failing axiom that everyone is accountable only for his own offence or wrong.
The Title of this Article are in speech marks because these are the direct words quoted by SFPD Patrol Officer: Donald Fouke. He is using these words to deny His admitting to another individual that He had, indeed, stopped and briefly questioned a White Male Subject on Jackson Street. Now the rebuttal He makes comes after this other individual claims Fouke had admitted to Him He actually had stopped a Un-Sub that night and this other individual isn't just Average Joe somebody, either. No, this counter claim or accusation placed at Fouke's feet that He is publicly lying comes directly from One Armond Pelissetti, employed by The SFPD Himself at equal and same rank as His fellow cop Fouke.
Well, considering Pelissetti (Left) is not indirectly or implying that Officer Fouke is lying, He is direct and to the point: "However, what Officer Fouke told Me and what He wrote in that scratch do not match." In other words, Don is lying in the public retelling of His encountering the Mystery WMA. While yes, it maybe true to say that Don has never wavered nor been contradictory as to the WMA's descriptive detail.
'White Male, 35 - 45 years of age. Navy blue Parka type jacket zipped part the way up. Rusty color pleated pants/trousers with tan color type of engineering style boot. Crew cut with receding hairline, which was light in color & possibly greying at rear.
Now, straight away if you were new here and heard that as a description of a spotted suspect you'd likely assume, rightly so, that this is a description coming from a person who had a very good and close proximity view of the said subject and that given the color of each and every garment given by witness, the said witness would have been viewing Un-Sub while the Un-Sub was under lighted conditions for a prolonged period (30 seconds or more) and that given the witness can describe the v shaped front hairline that is receding plus the back of this mans head appearing to be going grey, this witness must almost surely have been stood right in front of our Un-Sub before The Un-Sub turned and walked away thus allowing for the witness to observe "Ahh-ha! Greying at the rear!"
If told: "Well actually, no. This description came from a 5, 10, maybe 15 seconds tops sighting where the witness passed by subject without stopping but is viewing this from within a vehicle that is in continual motion on street, at Night, and subject is walking down sidewalk going under from illuminated by the street-lights to,as Fouke put it: "Walking in the shadow of the trees at the time..." with this initial 'Sighting' happening with the witness and Un-Sub being 75 yards distance apart, at Night, in the shadow of the trees and then offering us the color of this individuals shoes, the Receding V shaped 'Widows Peak' Hairline afront the Crew Cut, with light color hair with possible red tint in it that certainly was going grey but only at the rear of Subjects head" then You, the new comer to the case, would likely struggle to accept even that this is possible as it simply sounds so implausible.
I, and it's my stance only, would contend that it sounds so unbelievable simply because. . . . That's exactly what it is.
It's an accurate and true description He is giving I do believe, but one He gives after an encounter with the suspect that happens in a 'Face to Face' scenario, just as The Widow of Eric Zelms stated Her late Husband had told Her it happened.... as it just so happens. Donald has been forced to admit to visually seeing such an individual, Zodiac Himself has made sure We know at least this much truth! Fouke and Co. failed to even mention seeing anyone what-so-ever on Jackson street that night, A fact omitted that didn't go unnoticed by the Killer who quickly writes about it having happened thus forcing the Authorities to admit at least that it even happened! But, for whatever reason, Fouke will not admit to ever stopping this same man & verbally asking Him anything. Why admit to seeing Zodiac, thus affirming that the Zodiac is telling the truth about You and Your Dpt. concealing this incident yet adamantly denying the second part about actually asking The Un-Sub anything at all...I can't work that out!
For Me, You either refute and deny the whole claim made by Zodiac, or if You are to concede He be telling the truth and outing You and Your agency for concealing A Truth then You admit and be truthful about the event as a whole. What I don't understand at all is a response that says: "Ok, Z has forced our hand here so We will admit that yes, an Officer visually spotted Him, but We shall deny the verbal exchange claim and suggest this did not happen!" I suppose the Dpt. were forced, begrudgingly, into admitting to even encountering Him in the first place so maybe they were willing to concede to the basic bare minimum but not anything more than this. Fouke contesting that He got this detailed description via a 5 to 10 second bypassing of a person in whom, He states, he pays almost no attention to after observing He's White, this is, I contend, simply laughable!
Now, Many will and many have, and continue to do so, jump to the defence of this witness simply because He is a cop and has a badge! A Badge He no doubt is wearing while He gave this description. However, this cop failed to even mention seeing this WMA that evening until offending Zodiac write a kinda "Oh yeah, by the way....did i mention 2 cops did pull the goof..,.." He, the Criminal Offender We need to rely on in this instance to bring forth the truth, not The SFPD! The Offender pulls the Dpt. out from under the bush of concealment to force them to acknowledge a huge goof and error made that night by making them clarify that a cop car did pull up and one of the two cops occupying it did, as He claimed, call the offender over to themselves where they would briefly question him doing so 'Face to Face'.
To end I shall post a few Maxims of Law relevant to this post above:
- Gross negligence is held equivalent to intentional wrong.
- Misconduct binds its own authors. It is a never-failing axiom that everyone is accountable only for his own offence or wrong.
- Punishment is due if the words of an oath be false.
- Where there be uncertainty or opposing verdicts, the more credible are to be believed. It does not matter how many people believe a lie, it is still a lie!"
Misconduct binds its own authors. It is a never-failing axiom that everyone is accountable only for his own offence or wrong.
RSS Feed
