INTO WEST PACIFIC AVENUE

3/15/2016

This topic has been covered before, however, on this occasion it will be the most detailed analysis regarding the timeline of the Zodiac Killer, Donald Fouke and Armond Pelissetti from the time they received the 9:58 pm dispatch, to the time the Zodiac Killer disappeared into the night. These time accurate measurements of metric distance will be utilized from Google Maps to discover exactly where the three key players were at any particular point during the night of October 11th 1969. What we know is the time of the attack was estimated at 9:55 pm, but both Armond Pelissetti and Donald Fouke received the dispatch at the identical time, approximated at 9:58 pm. Their actions thereafter can be quantified fairly accurately.

Firstly, we will start with Donald Fouke, who was driving his patrol car in the vicinity of Presidio Avenue and Washington Street at 9:58 pm. This is how he described the events of that night: "We were patrolling the eastern side of the Richmond District, going northbound on Presidio Avenue, we had passed Washington Street when a broadcast came in of a shooting at Cherry and Washington Street. As we approached Maple Street I noticed on the north side of the street a white male adult". This gives us a distance to the initial sighting of Zodiac - so all we need now is Donald Fouke's driving speed to work out how much time had elapsed when he made this sighting. Donald Fouke went on to say regarding his speed: "Well until I saw him probably 35 or 40 mph on a 25 mph street". This is now enough information to calculate fairly accurately how much time had elapsed since the broadcast at 9:58 pm.

Using Google Maps we need to calculate the distance from the intersection of Presidio Avenue and Washington Street, to the intersection of Jackson and Maple. It is 835 meters or 0.52 miles. Traveling 35 mph is the equivalent of traveling 35 miles in 3,600 seconds. So doing a quick calculation, it takes Donald Fouke 53 seconds to reach this point. So allowing for the intersections he inevitably would have slowed down for, Donald Fouke would arrive at the intersection of Jackson and Maple at approximately 9:59 pm, give or take a few seconds.

At this point Zodiac is approaching the intersection. His traveling distance from the taxicab to this point is 242 meters, at an average walking speed of 3.1 mph, would take him 175 seconds, or just shy of 3 minutes. This proves that at least on one occasion the Zodiac was not lying. In the 'Bus Bomb' letter he mailed on November 9th 1969 he stated "p.s. 2 cops pulled a goof abot 3 min after I left the cab. I was walking down the hill to the park when this cop car pulled up + one of them called me over". The distances and timeline match up perfectly for Donald Fouke and the Zodiac Killer to cross paths at exactly the point of the Jackson and Maple intersection, which both ultimately confirmed. This combined with the matching descriptions of the three teenagers and Donald Fouke, puts it beyond any reasonable doubt this was the Zodiac Killer, no matter what Armond Pelissetti stated in the 2007 documentary 'This is the Zodiac Speaking'.

After the meeting with Zodiac, Donald Fouke stated in the documentary 'This is the Zodiac Speaking' that he continued onward to the next intersection, which was Jackson and Cherry Street, turned south and met Armond Pelissetti, who was traveling up Cherry Street in pursuit of Zodiac. This course of events is actually impossible. The distance to this point in Donald Fouke's journey is 1,000 meters (0.62 miles) - allowing for his claim of briefly slowing down for roughly 10 seconds as he passed the suspect - it takes approximately 80 seconds to reach the upper limits of Cherry Street from the Washington and Presidio Avenue intersection. The time would now be 9:59:20 pm. Remember, Armond Pelissetti received the broadcast at 9:58 pm (the same time as Donald Fouke}. Cherry Street is 100 meters in length, so at an average walking speed, this would take approximately 1 minute to travel in its entirety. That means that if Armond Pelissetti had started his journey up Cherry Street at 9:58 pm, he would meet Donald Fouke at 9:59 pm - 20 seconds quicker than 9:59:20 pm.

However, Armond Pelissetti only received the broadcast at 9.58 pm. Armond Pelissetti was close by and reacted traveling west on Washington Street and parked at the intersection of Washington and Cherry. He exited his vehicle and noticed three teenagers approaching the scene, so he ushered the kids back across the street to the alcove of their residence. At this point he was of the understanding he was looking for a negro male adult suspect. He went over to the taxicab and observed Paul Stine lying slumped over the front passenger seat with his head resting on the floorboard of the passenger side and was 99.9% certain he was dead. It is then he retook the description of the suspect. In the 2007 'This is the Zodiac Speaking' documentary he stated "it was then I was told it was a white male, I couldn't get to the radio fast enough at that point to let everybody else know. The kids had told me whoever had done this crime had left the cab, went out the door and seemed to be wiping the cab down and reaching into the cab and ambling or walking down Cherry Street in a northerly direction, kind of towards the Presidio. I walked that way myself, I did not run because there are innumerable alcoves and parked cars, so I went down following every technique I knew so I didn't get my head blown off".

There is absolutely no way Armond Pelissetti can respond to a radio broadcast at 9:58 pm, do all of the above, and then travel cautiously up Cherry Street and arrive there at 9:59:20 (in just 80 seconds), to meet up with Donald Fouke. This means one or other of the accounts in the documentary 'This is the Zodiac Speaking' is factually incorrect, and it happens to be that of Donald Fouke.

Armond Pelissetti needed a bare minimum of 3 minutes, likely 4 minutes, to reach the upper section of Cherry Street. So if this was where the two officers met up, and it only took Donald Fouke 80 seconds to reach this point, what was Donald Fouke doing for the other 2-3 minutes. The 'Crimes of the Century' documentary in 1989 gives us our first clue. In this documentary Donald Fouke stated;

"We proceeded on Jackson Street towards Arguello continuing our search, as we arrived at Arguello Street the description of the suspect was changed to a white male adult, believing this suspect was possibly the one involved in the shooting we entered the Presidio of San Francisco and conducted a search on West Pacific Avenue, the opposite side of the wall and the last direction we observed the suspect going, we did not find the suspect".
This explains clearly the missing 2-3 minutes, before Donald Fouke finally returned back to Cherry Street and met up with Armond Pelissetti. He was searching the area of West Pacific Avenue by the park. But what was he doing there? He was supposedly responding to an attack on Paul Stine at the intersection of Washington and Cherry Streets. So why was he heading away from the crime scene. Well, the Zodiac Killer may have an answer in the 'Bus Bomb' letter, where he stated "p.s. 2 cops pulled a goof abot 3 min after I left the cab. I was walking down the hill to the park when this cop car pulled up + one of them called me over + asked if I saw anyone acting suspicious or strange in the last 5 to 10 min + I said yes there was this man who was runnig by waveing a gun & the cops peeled rubber + went around the corner as I directed them + I disappeared into the park a block + a half away never to be seen again". Why would you be heading in the opposite direction to the crime scene, when a taxicab driver is being assaulted. The answer is - he was directed there by Zodiac - which perfectly explains the missing 2-3 minutes of the timeline.

Now, Donald Fouke stated "as we arrived at Arguello Street the description of the suspect was changed to a white male adult". This is the update issued by Armond Pelissetti. The distance from the beginning of Donald Fouke's journey to Arguello Street is 1.16 km (0.72 miles). This would take, allowing for slowing down passing Zodiac, approximately 100 seconds (1 minute 40 seconds). That would mean Armond Pelissetti had given the updated broadcast to a white male 100 seconds after receiving the initial broadcast at 9:58 pm. In other words his actions were fairly swift.

Donald Fouke is now at Arguello Boulevard at 9:59:40. If Armond Pelissetti met Donald Fouke at the north edge of Cherry Street, considering we calculated he needed a minimum of 3 minutes to reach this point from the initial broadcast time, then Armond Pelissetti from the time he updated the broadcast at 100 seconds, took 1 minute and 20 seconds to reach the north edge of Cherry. Considering he was proceeding very cautiously, and it takes 1 minute to walk at a normal walking speed, Armond Pelissetti actually only took 20 seconds longer than the average. It also meant Donald Fouke spent 1 minute 20 seconds traveling from Arguello Boulevard, into West Pacific Avenue, and back to Cherry Street, before they met up. This was his cursory search of the Presidio park area from the roadside edge, after being directed there by Zodiac. It is extremely likely Armond Pelissetti needed closer to 4 minutes to reach the top of Cherry Street, thereby allowing Donald Fouke an extra minute to search West Pacific Avenue and the area by Julius Khan playground.

When Donald Fouke was updated to the white male description at Arguello Boulevard, he, according to statements, traveled along West Pacific Avenue to the area of the Julius Khan Park, which is about one and a half blocks further east of the Jackson and Maple intersection, where he stated he last viewed the Zodiac Killer heading towards. Strange that, because Zodiac stated in the Bus Bomb Letter about an alleged discussion with police, that "I disappeared into the park a block + a half away never to be seen again".

Crucially however, the timeline of Donald Fouke described above, relied on his version of slowing down and passing Zodiac. Had he, as suspected, called Zodiac from the sidewalk and took his instruction of "yes there was this man who was runnig by waveing a gun", and the Zodiac directed them toward Arguello Boulevard, then his timeline would have been delayed by approximately 20-30 seconds. Nevertheless, the timeline remains perfectly viable, give or take a few seconds. But the bottom line is - had Donald Fouke traveled straight to Cherry Street, as described in the documentary 'This is the Zodiac Speaking', then the whole timeline fails to work - proving it simply didn't happen that way.

Greg H.

3/15/2016 10:43:03 pm

Good article. The million dollar question that remains: Did Fouke speak to Zodiac? The fact that he was able to provide a reasonably good physical description of the suspect weighs in favor of him doing so. But I'm still not convinced he'd have the temerity to maintain this lie over the course of 40 years. He gave a fair few number of interviews, on camera no less, in which he was unblinkingly adamant that he did not speak to Zodiac. It's also asking a lot of Zodiac that he'd be quick enough on his feet to so slickly deflect the cops away from his guilt -after all he'd killed a man in cold blood just minutes before. He had to have been more emotional than logical at this moment, to say nothing about the blood that may have been on his clothes. I take Fouke at his word that he didn't have a conversation with Zodiac. Fouke was forthright enough to come forward with the story of driving past the suspect, I see no reason why he'd stop there and give us only half the story if he did, however briefly, talk to the killer. Despite how some may feel about cops these days, I'd still trust their word over that of a serial killer 9 times out of 10.

Alex Lewis

3/16/2016 07:13:56 am

Disclaimer first: This response Greg, it's not implying nor do I direct it at or about you mate, you've just raised the good point by asking the Question so my reply is people I have encountered that are posting on other Z related sites.....

I don't know why it's even something people to this day can and do contest or question if Don spoke to a WMA or not that night? I mean, don't get me wrong, each is entitled to their own views and opinions without exception and a want and need for an ability to show evidence for a belief or opinion is never going to be a bad idea, but sometimes people take scepticism to a whole new, rather illogical level, at least in my opinion anyway.
There are a few of these type of wonderful people over at Morfs site, whom, I am sure of it, just sit at their computers monitoring the threads waiting for somebody to post anything that is unproven and deemed speculation and when such a post is spotted by them they leap into action & come charging onto the thread like a freight train shouting "EVIDENCE? EVIDENCE!!! WHERE FOR ART THOU, OHH EVIDENE" and seem to want to let you know either you show the evidence NOW or they will dismiss you & your post because they can!"

Sometimes I like to use the well known expression, although I have no physical evidence to prove it is a well known theory, is the one that goes: "If it looks like a Rabbit, hops like a rabbit and acts in ever way like a rabbit, then the odd are? .....Its a f***ng Rabbit!!"

Now you'll always have the types that will see this hoping, long eared, carrot loving fluff ball and reject that we can say with reasonably high certainty that this thing in a field is a rabbit and would demand you run around the field and chase it until you capture it so that we may briefly detain the hopping 'Thing' in order for us to obtain a swab of it's DNA for testing. (2nd part of post to come below. . .)

I mean strictly speaking it would be true to say that no physical evidence to show Don and/or Eric stopped their vehicle to converse with a white male on or near Jackson St between 22 andf 23 hundred hours on October 11th, in the year Nineteen Hundred & Sixty Nine no, but I mean is it logical to say 'We don't know if Don and Eric spoke to A WMA that night' when you know Dianna Zelms has given her account of what Eric had told Her had occurred that Night, that Eric had explained that He and Don did stop their car, they did speak to White Male and, quote, spoke with him "Face to Face" and, She recalled Eric saying, did nothing to appear in any way suspicious at all and that He was very calm, softly spoken and Eric told her had left Himself and Don with "No reason to suspect He was the man we were after."

No this is 3rd party information, which is Hearsay, which is not allowed as 'Evidence' in court etc and this is true. However, let us go nut's for a moment and use logic to look at this situation in order to point us toward a conclusion. . .

So, my logic tells me that when considering several important facts and details such as Dianna making these comments after Her Husbands very tragic, senseless and extremely cold-hearted life was take in the line of Duty, shot dead on the street with His own service issued revolver etc, how likely is it that Dianna is just making all this up because she wants to lie and defame the name of Her late Husband because she is Compulsive Liar and Psychotic attention seeker? This is one of two possibilities yes, but the other one, I would state, is a bit more logical, likely, and in reality, is the only real logical answer there is..,..

Dianna said that is what Eric had told her because....(Wait for it. . . ) BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT ERIC HAD TOLD HER!!

Mad isn't it! How the hell can I, or anyone, come to any conclusion without physical proof?

In fact from now on, when someone rebuffs my statement of belief in Eric and Don encounter with a WMA being verbal one and asks me "How can I arrive at that conclusion with no Solid proof?" I am not going to answer them by pointing to things such as Dianna's statements, and as Greg points out, Don's suspiciously detailed clothing description with His elasticated little cuffs, No I think I just do what they do and answer them by abandoning any and all logic myself when doing so and so, when I am asked:

How can I arrive at that conclusion with no Solid proof? My answer is going to be:

"Because I am f*cking Nuts!!!!" If asked to elaborate will offer:

"If I believe something this means its true and that is the end of that now F Off and leave me alone, I am trying to eat my asbestos Corn-Flakes!!"

You know the saying (At I speculate you do, no hard evidence i'm afraid) that I shall leave unfished for the next person who post to fill in and that is:
"Ask A stupid Question, get ......

Alex Lewis

3/16/2016 07:41:06 am

I was listening to a psychologist not to long ago saying (On the TV, not across the room from me which some considered hearing when they had got 6 words into the opening sentence here lol) and He was talking about Human Beings and how we as Humans have a scientific need to make hundreds of assumptions daily and not be aware you do so because we do so on a subconscious level because, He said, we would not have any ability to function if we did not do this because if we had to consider consciously what our subconscious mind considers and assumes for us, well then we simply would never would be able to do anything or anything done."

I kinda sat and considered what He had just said (not subconsciously, it must be said and without any ability to show proof) and I nevert given what He was saying any consideration nor was even really aware of it until He brought it up on the tv, but He is absolutely right.

For example Rich, orGreg, matters not in this example which of you I am speaking to because it will apply to both in me saying that you've already made an assumption if you are goimg to reply to me and this post. You are assuming that your keyboard works to enable you to respond. You also assume by the time you reply I will b e here to read it or can and will return to read it at some stage. See where I am going with it, its quite alarming when you realise how many things we just go ahead and do because we have assumed something subconsciously. I mean Richard, you are at this very instant reading my reply here assuming the roof above you head will not collapse in and onto you and badly hurt or kill you, this is an assumption I also have made although we don't know we've done this.

Imagine what life would be like if we didn't make all these decisions and assumptions subconsciously, and had to stop to consider each in a conscious decision, we really would not ever have much room or chance to do anything productive.

Greg H.

3/16/2016 09:21:31 pm

Hey Alex..
I honestly never knew about Mrs. Zelms's alleged statements that her late husband Eric told her he'd stopped Zodiac. I did a quick bit of internet research on the subject and learned from a post made by Michael Butterfield that her remarks came from Howard Davis, a researcher who has taken up the thesis that Zodiac and the Mansons were intricately linked, setting off a reign of terror and bloodshed together. Based on what I've looked at, Davis seems to believe Bruce Davis was Zodiac...
In Butterfield's post, he attempts to get true confirmation from Mrs. Zelms herself to establish the veracity of Howard Davis's story. Unfortunately she never responded to any of his attempts at contacting her and in the end all we're left with are these somewhat unsubstantiated claims from Howard Davis.

I don't mean to come off as dismissive, but I'd definitely like to see something more tangible from Mrs. Zelms with relation to the claim that her husband spoke to Zodiac... I'm quite open-minded about this entire subject... I give my opinions based upon the information I've reviewed and acquired, but my ideas are far from set and can change if and when I come across conclusive facts...

To give you an example of something tantamount to this stuff attributed to Mrs. Zelms, I'm reminded of all the people who came forward about Arthur Leigh Allen and the elaborate plans he supposedly shared with them on his intention to commit crimes/murders and call himself "Zodiac." We have his friends Don Cheney, Sandy Panzarella, and a supposed aquaintance in the form of Ralph Spinelli -all of whom have discussed at length their conversations with Allen and deep belief that he was Zodiac. These guys have even done so on camera for all the world to see (unlike the vague quotes allegedly made by Mrs. Zelms) and yet the vast majority of Zodiac researchers conclude their stories to be complete rubbish.

Are we taking, in your words, skepticism to a new, illogical level when we cast off the words of not one but 3 men who gave these recollections on camera with hardly any hesitation? By mentioning Allen's maligners I'm in no way suggesting I think he was Zodiac...the purpose is just to show the somewhat arbitrary manner in which we will sometimes be inclined to accept or refute information based upon how it may be applied to broader concepts we wish to believe in.

I'm not trying to be disagreeable in any way, Alex.. I respect your opinions and always enjoy a healthy discussion of the case with both yourself and Richard...
If you can provide another reference for Mrs. Zelms's testimony other than Howard Davis, I'm most willing to hear it out. But I've read enough Zodiac books by a pool of countless authors to realize that it doesn't take (or mean) much to throw words down on a page, regardless of just how reputable their anonymous "inside source" may happen to be...

Greg H.

3/16/2016 09:25:11 pm

Here is Michael Butterfield's take on this, if you guys are interested:
http://www.zodiackillerfacts.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=543

When it comes to questions like, “Did Fouke and Zelms actually stop the Zodiac?” I think that the answers are obvious to those who look.

In a TV interview, retired SFPD Officer Armond Pelissetti had claimed that police had stopped the Zodiac that night. I asked Pelissetti if he had any first hand knowledge of that, either from that night or police reports. He said no, but that he believed he remembered that Don Fouke had confessed to him some time after that night. He then proceeded to make many statements that clearly indicated that he did not really believe that Fouke had stopped the killer than night. Pelissetti, at the beginning of our discussions, admitted that he was recovering from a serious health problem and that his memory was not all that great sometimes, so I wondered. How could he reconcile these two seemingly disparate positions? I asked him: Did Fouke confess that he stopped the Zodiac, or did he confess that he was the one who had been accused of doing so? Pelissetti admitted that was a good question, one which he could not answer. He then explained that he doubted that Fouke had stopped the killer, and did so with sincerity and cited reasons to support that conclusion. He then said he deferred to Fouke on the issue since his own memory of their discussion was incomplete and unreliable.

When I tried to explain Pelissetti’s statements to some who were already convinced that Fouke was lying, they didn’t even wait for me to finish and immediately interrupted with more cries of cover-up and conspiracy– they believed Pelissetti was just covering for Fouke. It seems to be much easier to just believe in a completely implausible and virtually laughable scenario than it is to simply accept common sense, the facts and logic. I have no doubt that this post will not change the minds of those who wish to continue calling Fouke a liar, as they are apparently addicted to fantasy and want to keep unnecessary mystery alive.

To me, an examination of the facts paints a very clear picture:

PELISSETTI on COLD CASE FILES: “The other unit stopped somebody, a white man, and asked if he had seen anything suspicious, or anybody in the area, and that person said, ‘YES, a man just ran into the Presidio.’ ... The conjecture is that this was the Zodiac. Was it? I don’t know. He didn’t see any blood on that person’s clothing, and believe me, based on the crime scene, there would have been a lot of blood on that person.”

This is essentially the same story which appears in the book ZODIAC, and was the public version of the story since 1986. Anyone who read that book, and believed the author was a responsible journalist reporting the facts, would naturally assume that this version was the truth.

When I talked to Pelissetti, he said that the Zodiac replied, “No,” and that was it.

In the DVD documentaries for the film ZODIAC, Pelissetti tells a version which appears to be a combination of these two previous versions, and, in the third, he does more to implicate Fouke while still attempting to walk the thin line between accusing Fouke of incompetence and back-peddling on that very accusation.

PELISSETTI on ZODIAC DVD Docu: I spoke to Officer Fouke later that evening and I was unaware that he had stopped anybody. Black, white or any other color. However, in subsequent conversations with him, he told me that he did stop somebody... He told me he saw a man walking by and that he asked him, "Did you see anybody go by?" The person said, "No." ... I believe that Fouke would have been honest, but that scratch and what he told me do not coincide. It seemed Officer Fouke, in that amount of time, felt that he had stopped the Zodiac... Well, it's very hard to say whether he did nor not. It would be a point of conjecture at this point, and he seemed quite upset.

ZODIAC: Had a very strong ulterior motive for portraying the police as incompetent and to create doubt/confusion after police released a sketch of the killer and claimed he had left fingerprints behind at the scene. Notable fact: The Zodiac went out of his way to ridicule and embarrass police in his letter sent within two days after the Stine murder, and he even mocked police for failing to capture him. He also escalated the threats by suggesting that he was intended to attack a school bus filled with children. A killer who was so frightened by his brush with capture would not behave in this manner, most certainly after he had been stopped and briefly questioned by two police officers near the scene. The Zodiac waited almost a month before mentioning this claim about a police stop, and he buried it in the middle of the letter (although he did insist that this portion be published, further evidence that the killer was using propaganda to cast doubt on the

Alex Lewis

3/17/2016 09:06:14 am

No I knew it was Howard Davis who stated Her had spoke to Diana Zelms and she had told Him what Eric had said about the stop. Now most responded with skepticism or just outright non-belief.

I wouldn't state Eric had said A B & C if it were just Howard saying "Diana Zelms told me Eric had said...blah blah blAah blah blah, I am Howard, feel free to immediately believe everything, thank you."

A lot of people knew He, Howard, endorsed Bruce Davies as Zodaic and so just His claim to have spoke to Eric widow just a claim with no proof nor evidence.
That's when Howard posted a full email showing full and complete with sent to, sent from, and the email itself. I'll paraphrase the best I can remember it as Howard published it via screen shot. .

"Sent to: [email protected]
Sender email: DianaZelms@SomethingorOther. com

Dear Howard.

In response to you requesting would I please clarify that I, Diana Zelms, widow opr Officer Eric A. Zelms, did speak with you and I confirm Eric told me, what I told you, which you are more tha n welcome to make known.
If anyone question I have spoke with, and stated to Howard what my Late Husband had told me then, by all means, contact me directly."

It was something along them lines Greg.

And as far as I know, and I could be completely wrong here obviously but, I have not then nor to this day ever hear Diana confirm for Howard a statement anything like "Oh Yea Howard, Eric said He was certain it was One Bruce Davies, Manson Family affiliate & Chum of Charlie that He saw."

Richard

3/16/2016 01:05:48 am

Hi Greg, I look at the police shootings of unarmed civilians today, throughout America and one thing seems evident virtually every time, the police officers version is totally different than the actual course of events, usually portraying himself to be the good guy. What is worse mind is the actual department routinely backing the officer, no matter how murderous or disgraceful his actions were. This is the disturbing part, when you have police departments routinely covering for a violent or murderous cop. What they are doing is effectively endorsing the behavior and sending out a message that this behavior is acceptable. What is even more astonishing is that they are prepared to lie through their back teeth, even when the whole incident is captured on film for all to see their lies. They have no bounds of decency. There are likely many good police officers in the USA and we cannot tarnish the majority, however when they are represented by a corrupt and lying department, it tarnishes all, even the good cops. This produces mistrust in police, but hopefully not revenge attacks. But how can one expect sympathy for police from some quarters, when they so violate other peoples rights, without a second thought. My point being, if they can lie so blatantly about an incident, when it is clearly captured on film, I am sure the lies go even deeper when body cameras are not present. So I am convinced that a small white lie in 1969, by officers not directly involved in any shooting by their hand, would have no hesitation in covering up. Donald Fouke maintained this story for 40 years, to the point he probably actually believed it. He certainly would have looked extremely foolish backtracking on his story in later years. Even murderers sitting in jail for 40 years constantly protest their innocence, despite their DNA being found on all the victims, the knife in their hand, blood all over their clothing and the body in the attic. Human beings are notorious liars and always will be. There are good officers out there, unfortunately they are tarnished by the overwhelming culture of shoot first, think later, but as for trusting them, no chance, not when they murder close to a 1,000 people a year, with no conscience and no remorse. One police officer after shooting two people, even had the temerity to sue the victims family for mental anguish. This is how low some people will tread. Donald Fouke cannot be compared to these people obviously, but he couldn't have met Pelissetti driving straight to Cherry, so why was he heading to West Pacific Avenue via Arguello. He said it clearly in 1989. As always Greg cheers for your input.

Greg H.

3/16/2016 11:25:05 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/police-shooting-charges_us_5661b436e4b079b2818e4765

It's a tough job, Richard.. The article above shows that with the ubiquity of video, more cops are being charged with homicide, manslaughter than ever before. I don't really have an overly cynical view of the process -I realize there are governing bodies which closely review incidents involving possible foul-play or corruption within the police force. If you look at a whistleblower like Frank Serpico, who exposed plently of wrongdoing within the NYPD in the late-60s, early-70s, it certainly seems like abuse may have been rampant. But I do think things have been tightened up considerably since then. Social media and the internet, for one, has brought police brutalities under the microscope and I think consequently cops are far more careful these days in how they go about their job.

If you watch a tv program like "Cops" you see just how dangerous and intense their work is. I don't envy them. Not only do you fear for your life in the form of reckless criminals but if you make a costly mistake in the heat of the moment you're equally liable.
In any case, I think the majority of cops out there are doing a difficult job and are extremely brave people. It's unfortunate that the 2% who are bad apples tends to sully the repuation of the greater good.
I'm not convinced that departments routinely stand behind bad cops, either. Just a month ago here in NY an officer named Peter Liang was convicted of manslaughter and summarily fired. Another notable case here in the States was the shooting of Walter Scott by a bad cop named Thomas Slanger, who'll be standing trial for murder. Cops do bad stuff on occasion, but it gets terrifically magnified. The work they do toward protecting society and keep law-abiding people safe is indispensible.

Richard

3/16/2016 11:51:52 pm

I agree Greg, most cops do a good job and unfortunately the way media is, the only time we hear about anything, is when something bad happens. The helpful policeman who saves somebodies life or helps the old woman across the street will never get the headlines of a cop gone wild. But I concur Greg, the few tarnish the majority and in general do a very important and excellent job.

Richard

3/16/2016 01:52:10 am

We both know Greg that Donald Fouke received a broadcast describing an assault and robbery taking place on a taxicab driver at Washington and Cherry. His actions thereafter make perfect sense, he is taking the most direct route to the scene of the crime in progress. He travels along Jackson to head south on Cherry. He hasn't received any updates at this point, so his duty of care is to Paul Stine, to stop the assault and robbery, not deviate toward the park. But this is a 70 second journey time to the top of Cherry and as described above Pelissetti cannot get there in 70 seconds. Walking Cherry alone is about a minute, at normal walking speed. What I want to know is an alternative explanation for the missing 2 minutes, to enable Fouke to bump into Pelissetti. How does he manage this meeting without going 'off piste'. What changed his decision to travel directly to Cherry, after all his primary care is for the taxicab driver being assaulted. This deviation which he outlined in a documentary some 18 years prior to the 2007 interview has some merit. His mind and recollections were surely clearer. Once I can resolve the issue of where he went and why, things will become clearer as to whether he stopped Zodiac or not. But if he didn't stop Zodiac, surely he should have ended up at the crime scene alongside Pelissetti, which he didn't.

Greg H.

3/16/2016 09:57:57 pm

Not much time to reply now, Richard, but I remember discussing the time discrepency in the 12/13/15 article "The Donald Fouke Timeline"
You say:
"There is definitely 2 minutes missing from the Fouke timeline and I believe he is totally honest in the 1989 documentary that he didn't turn south on Cherry, he continued on to Arguello. My question has always been why is he heading this way, away from the crime scene"
Me:
"Well, looking at the map, Arguello is only one additional short block past Cherry while travelling along Jackson. If you take the left on Arguello as Jackson terminates you can then make another quick left and you're on Washington, approaching the crime scene. Is it possible that Cherry, running north and south was sealed off, placed on lockdown by Pellisetti immedately after the shooting? This is not likely, but still a guess.
Another possibility is that Fouke proceeds to the end of the Jackson and onto Arguello to canvas a greater surface area of terrain with the potential the suspect could have turned left on Jackson, rather than right (as we know now he did). I don't know what police procedure or protocol is when it comes to taking stock of the immediate aftermath of a crime scene nor do I know how proficient these officers were at their profession, but it could actually make good sense from the perspective of covering more ground to survey the remaining block of Jackson and then checking down Arguello for the suspect. After all, Pellisetti was already walking up Cherry; it may have been redundant to spend all their manpower on one street when the next block (Arguello) had yet to be looked at."

I guess the question I ask now is this: if he did go into West Pacific Ave. based on the suggestion from Zodiac that there was a man waving a gun down the blvd., why would he spend only 70 seconds perusing the outer perimeter of the park? Would this not warrant a more comprehensive search? Even if he changed course because the suspect was updated (con't)

Greg H.

3/16/2016 10:23:38 pm

from a BMA to a WMA, this should have little bearing on the directions he may have received (from Zodiac). They would have, in theory, commenced with a thorough, not cursory, search of the park.
Fouke says:
"We proceeded on Jackson Street towards Arguello continuing our search, as we arrived at Arguello Street the description of the suspect was changed to a white male adult, believing this suspect was possibly the one involved in the shooting we entered the Presidio of San Francisco and conducted a search on West Pacific Avenue, the opposite side of the wall and the last direction we observed the suspect going, we did not find the suspect."

Now, let me ask, exactly WHERE do they enter the park via West Pacific? Presumably through Arguello as that seems to be the only entrance...

"This explains clearly the missing 2-3 minutes, before Donald Fouke finally returned back to Cherry Street and met up with Armond Pelissetti. He was searching the area of West Pacific Avenue by the park. But what was he doing there. He was supposedly responding to an attack on Paul Stine at the intersection of Washington and Cherry Street. So why was he heading away from the crime. Well the Zodiac Killer may have an answer in the 'Bus Bomb' letter"

Here is how I understand it after reading the above quotations: Fouke received the updated decription while en route to Wash-Cherry, he says "hey, sounds like the guy we just drove past." He then remembers the suspect seemed to be heading toward the inner park, so he turns up West Pacific and drives eastward (away from the crime scence, on the opposite side of the wall, as he says) to canvass along the outer perimeter of the park in hopes of locating the WMA who he just drove past.. He doesn't find him so then loops back toward Cherry a minute or two later and connects with Pellisetti.. What was he doing going into the park, as you ask? He was backtracking because he'd received the updated description AFTER he passed the WMA on the street who appeared to be heading into the park.. Zodiac could have watched their car as the turned into West Pacific and very easily concocted this story in an attempt to disparage the cops...

Greg H.

3/16/2016 10:32:50 pm

Please negate this part of my comment I've quote below, if I was able to delete, I would.. The final paragraph I wrote in my message above is my best understanding of what happened at the Presidio...

"I guess the question I ask now is this: if he did go into West Pacific Ave. based on the suggestion from Zodiac that there was a man waving a gun down the blvd., why would he spend only 70 seconds perusing the outer perimeter of the park? Would this not warrant a more comprehensive search? Even if he changed course because the suspect was updated from a BMA to a WMA, this should have little bearing on the directions he may have received (from Zodiac). They would have, in theory, commenced with a thorough, not cursory, search of the park. "

Sir Welsh Chappie

3/30/2016 05:00:24 pm

Armond gets the radio call as 'Cab driver being robbed and/or possibly assaulted" and was, no doubt, given as a 'Crime in Progress.'
It's overlooked as to the actual radio call Fouke responds to, but the words used of 'A call came in of a shooting at Cherry and Washington..." because I suspect this is the radio alert Don gets and responds to issued by the only man who can state Paul has been shot and is dead, that man is Armond Pelissetti.

Armond states He couldn't get to the car radio fast enough to air an update (He claims on Ethnicity/Race of Un-Sub, I maintain it was to air direction the suspect is heading, along with a descript.

Rich you've said many times how come Fouke takes that long to get from Presidio Av to Jax and Map street? I think He on;y responds to Armonds second radio call because this would seriously up the ante....Driver not been assaulted, but murdered. Suspect is somewhere on Jax, armed with murder weapon. All Available Units respond to Maple area on Jackson priority.

If you think of it the incident as given to the patrol cars just mentions a cabbie involved in an altercation possibly being assaulted. This could be a minor scuffle. No huge response needed.....until Armond comes over thee air to update other units in the area driver is dead, has been shot in head, and the responsible is literally tuned down Jax off Cherry as your picking up the radio to air the update.

Alex

3/30/2016 05:05:50 pm

Which, if you think about it, would fit a perfect timeline. Don only responds when Armond issues the alert of the crime being homicide and suspect just turned off cherry onto Jackson as Don turns West onto Jackson. The Z seen nearing Maple now makes sense totally timeline wise.

Richard

3/31/2016 01:08:01 am

Yes that's something I have considered and you are bang on Alex. this makes both Armond Pelissetti's and Donald Fouke's timeline now work perfectly, especially if he met Fouke directly, but certainly matches with him 'bumping' into Zodiac at Jackson and Maple. I tell you what Alex, people lie, but time and gravity don't, The above article is plausible, but so is the idea Fouke responded to the second broadcast and not the first, however that would be a bit slack on his part, although not unheard of regarding police officers.

Richard

3/31/2016 01:51:36 am

Here is something slightly interesting Alex. The three teenagers described the suspect as having reddish-brown hair. Fouke described in his memorandum on November 12th 1969 as light colored hair possibly graying in rear. So as of October 12th 1969, the day after the attack, the San Francisco Chronicle ran an article entitled 'Cabbie Slain in Presidio Heights'. In this article it described the suspect as white, about 40, 170 lbs and a blond crew cut. Now don't forget the teenagers described the suspect as reddish-brown hair and 25-30 years of age. However this Chronicle article describes Fouke's description of a man 35-45 (ie around 40) and light hair, ie; not the teenagers description. This means the San Francisco Chronicle were privy to Donald Fouke's description the following day, early enough for publication. Even the police report wasn't countersigned by Pelissetti until 6.30 am on the 12th. This has to mean that a reporter at the Chronicle had to have either got this information directly from Donald Fouke or second hand through Pelissetti, yet Fouke's memorandum only released this info one month later. It couldn't have been heard by the reporter over the airwaves of the police broadcast, because that would have mentioned the reddish-brown hair, the younger age and the BMA description, none of which were mentioned in the Chronicle article. This means the Chronicle must come directly from source, ie; a police officer and it had to have been taken either late on the 11th October or early morning on the 12th to have hit print on the same day. The description of 40 and blond is nearer to page 2 of the police report stating "WMA, in his early forties, reddish-blond, crew cut hair. This means it is highly likely either Pelissetti or Fouke passed this info to the Chronicle in the hours following the crime, further dispelling the myth that Donald Fouke kept quiet about the sighting. What is unusual though, is that if the Chronicle reporter got the information off one of the relevant police officers, surely his next question should have been 'where did you spot the suspect', yet no mention in the October 12th article of the sighting on Jackson Street or any subsequent article for that matter.

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh97/tahoe27/Newspaper%20Articles/ZodiacSFChron10-12-69CabbieSlain_zpsbf4703cf.jpg

Richard

3/31/2016 03:12:36 am

Three days later on 15th October out comes a revised description in the Chronicle back to the 25-30 years, reddish-brown. It is either 25-30 or 40 not both. Same with reddish-brown or blond hair colour. Unless they were advised.

Richard

3/31/2016 03:31:45 am

Now going back to what I said before, any reporter worth his salt being given a description of 40 and blond hair from a police officer would then say "where did you see him" or "where was he seen" and "did you stop him" or "was he stopped". When the answer was no, surely a curious newspaper reporter would say "why not" and the answer as you know Alex should have been because we were given a description of a black male, none of which appeared in the Chronicle. Now did the police department prevent the Chronicle from publishing this embarrassing fact or were the officers immediately told to keep the embarrassing black description under wraps, or more likely the BMA description never happened. After all it was only a month later in the memorandum that we learnt of this fact, and Fouke's sighting and description, the latter of which seemingly appeared in the Chronicle on October 12th 1969.

Alex

3/31/2016 09:03:25 am

" I tell you what Alex, people lie, but time and gravity don't"

That is my exact mindset if and when approaching a claim or claims that are inconsistent, laced with illogical happenings or lies found within the claim. First thing I try to conclude is 'Is what they say possible?' If the answer is yes, then next question is 'How Probable/likely is what they are claiming to be true actually true?' Does it make sense logically what they are saying? Is their an obvious reason for them to be telling deliberate lies, and does it serve an agenda to do so.

"the idea Fouke responded to the second broadcast and not the first, however that would be a bit slack on his part"

Well depends how urgent or serious the radio call was. If the call went out and Armond immediately radioed back He is 20 seconds from the given area or location so is basicly on scene almost instantly then maybe the other units wouldn't all dash there and will await a radio update from Armond and if Armond requires backup units, they'll stay relatively close by and respond if AP calls for backup.

Don and Eric could have been on a traffic stop, or whatever just tied up. Any cop on a traffic stop, domestic disturbance etc will immediately drop that and respond to radio calls of shots fired (Paul has been shot dead)and assailant is armed and dangerous close by in the vicinity.

Alex Lewis

3/31/2016 09:24:55 am

And again, I've always been totally dumbstruck as to how Zodiac doesn't see the cop car coming up Jackson and takes evasive steps (quite literally) only when the cop is almost running Him down. At night it's not easy to miss a car with red lights flashing on its roof and making sounds like air raid siren.
However, lets say Don is heading up Jackson specifically looking for a suspect He believes is armed and dangerous, cops don't announce their arrival then by making a huge spectacle of themselves giving the suspect an 800 yard advanced warning "Here I come, ready or not mr naughty wanted guy."
Covert, unassuming and stealthy approach will always be the order of the day in that scenario so I imagine Z didn't know it was cops and likely belived that actually it can;t be, if it were they too would surely have their lights and siren active as He knows the other car that arrived as He's nearing the end of Cherry.

Notorious B.I.G Welsh Chappie

3/31/2016 01:18:51 pm

Notorious B.I.G, or Banned Inferior Gob-Shite Welsh Shhhapie. Ok that's great, back to reality now Alex 5....4......3...2.....1: We have seriousness. . .

The Finer Descriptive Details Rich as to what color hair Z had, His size being 250 and overweight fatty or barrel chested stocky man......I dunno. I think the basis as per Don's estimate of Age and general medium Heavy build is all I think I amconfident enough to believe as accurate.

I mean take your pick Rich, you can have a blonde crew cut zodiac, jet black curly haired Zodiac, brown wavy haired zodiac with fringe hanging over the forehead Zodiac. A light colored crew cut, greying at the back of head with widows peak receding hairline Zodiac. Blonde with red tint crewcut Zodiac.

Me, I just think it's a safe assumption to make that the Zodiac was, at least the Zodiac of Pacific Heights if there were more than one person involved, He was a WMA, Approx. Age range: 35 - 45. Short Crew cut with somewhat receding hairline and weighed 170 - 210lbs.

You know what the evidence suggests aboutmultiple eye witness reports on the same one event, One cop said: "Your think that the more witnesses to a crime you have, the better it is for the cops and prosecutor. That is absolutely not the case, in fact, I'd rather have oe witness confident in what they saw because when you get 5 10 or 50, all of their account differ on height, age, colour & make of vehicle and none are lying, just remembering it from a perspective as they saw it. It's a nightmare!

Richard

3/16/2016 11:22:31 pm

In terms of the Diane Zelms alleged statements, that is all they are, we only have the word of Howard Davis and like you Greg do not use this as proof that Fouke and Zelms stopped Zodiac. It is effectively hearsay and must be treated as such. You said something important above " Despite how some may feel about cops these days, I'd still trust their word over that of a serial killer 9 times out of 10." I personally am sceptical of Fouke's statements, and some are sceptical of Pelissetti, but what I cannot understand is why one police officer would lie about what another said, in the instance of this crime, it serves no purpose. Armond Pelissetti stated in the 2007 documentary "I spoke to Officer Fouke later that evening and I was unaware that he had stopped anybody. Black, white or any other color. However, in subsequent conversations with him, he told me that he did stop somebody... He told me he saw a man walking by and that he asked him, "Did you see anybody go by?" The person said, "No." ... I believe that Fouke would have been honest, but that scratch and what he told me do not coincide. It seemed Officer Fouke, in that amount of time, felt that he had stopped the Zodiac... Well, it's very hard to say whether he did nor not. It would be a point of conjecture at this point, and he seemed quite upset." Michael Butterfield suggested many of the conspiracy issues arose after Robert Graysmith's Zodiac book, before this there was no issue. But clearly Pelissetti is intimating here that in fact Fouke told him he had stopped Zodiac, and this has nothing to do with Graysmith. What could Pelissetti gain from this lie, I cannot see any logical reason for wantonly casting aspersions on Donald Fouke and take Pelissetti at his word on this occasion, simply because he has nothing to gain by lying, as far as I can see.

"Another possibility is that Fouke proceeds to the end of the Jackson and onto Arguello to canvas a greater surface area of terrain with the potential the suspect could have turned left on Jackson, rather than right."
That is plausible, my only reservation is that Donald Fouke when approaching Cherry is only furnished with the information of a "black man last seen heading up Cherry." At this point in time Pelissetti is at the crime scene, not pursuing up Cherry, so if Donald Fouke proceeds onward to Arguello, he is effectively leaving Cherry Street unmanned. At the point Fouke passes Cherry, Pelissetti as you said above "Pellisetti was already walking up Cherry; it may have been redundant to spend all their manpower on one street." However Fouke took no longer than 70 seconds to reach the top of Cherry, there is no way he could of observed Pelissetti in Cherry, to make the decision that street was already covered, because Pelissetti couldn't have made it there that quickly. In fact, as we know Donald Fouke received Pelissetti's amended description, as he puts it, in Arguello, proving Pelissetti's version of the update at the crime scene. In other words if Pelisseti was by the taxicab giving the updated description to Fouke in Arguello, Fouke could not have seen Pelissetti in Cherry at this point to assume the street was covered.

Alex Lewis

4/24/2016 05:25:01 pm

"I personally am sceptical of Fouke's statements, and some are sceptical of Pelissetti, but what I cannot understand is why one police officer would lie about what another said, in the instance of this crime, it serves no purpose."

Oh but it absolutely does servea purpose Rich, it simply has to because they wouldn't be doing it if there was no rhyme or reason to it nor purpose to do so. You, and myself for that matter, just because it isn't apparent to us Richard and overtly obvious to see or work out what that purpose is does not mean that the purpose or reason for it does not exist.
It's 1am now here, I cannot physically see the Sun at presence but I know it exists, it's just on the other side of the rotating Planet so is presently obscured from my view and ability to see it. I have to wait for the Planet to continue it's rotation and in time Rich, when the rotation gets to the point where it no longer conceals the life giving Star, then I will be able to physically see it.

Lets use an analogy, 2 men hold up an Armored truck. The plan is just to steal the cash with nobody being hurt and the assumption the bandits head off under is the sight of a shotgun and the threat of violence alone will be enough to have this happen. During hold up, one of the Armored Truck Employees drops his hand, grips His holstered weapon and draws down on one of the two suspects forcing that ski-masked thief to shoot or be shot and He kills the ARV Driver.

As soon as both are identified and brought in, both men will say the other one was the actual shooter. Why? Simple, to lessen their own criminal charge & punishment. Now which is lying? Which One pulled the trigger? We don't know, but the Driver of the A'rd Truck is dead via buckshot and so someone is lying Rich and which is it is unclear, but the motive to do so certainly is not!

Richard

3/16/2016 11:40:17 pm

"Here is how I understand it after reading the above quotations: Fouke received the updated decription while en route to Wash-Cherry, he says "hey, sounds like the guy we just drove past." He then remembers the suspect seemed to be heading toward the inner park, so he turns up West Pacific and drives eastward (away from the crime scence, on the opposite side of the wall, as he says) to canvass along the outer perimeter of the park in hopes of locating the WMA who he just drove past.. He doesn't find him so then loops back toward Cherry a minute or two later and connects with Pellisetti.. What was he doing going into the park, as you ask? He was backtracking because he'd received the updated description AFTER he passed the WMA on the street who appeared to be heading into the park.. Zodiac could have watched their car as the turned into West Pacific and very easily concocted this story in an attempt to disparage the cops..."
That's about the sum of it Greg, Fouke is by Arguello, receives the update and having the light bulb go on in his head he has likely just past the offender, having last seen him going toward the dividing wall at the end of Maple, that heads into the park, Donald Fouke swings a right into West Pacific Avenue to about the region of the Julius Khan Playground, then after his brief search heads back and meets Pelissetti in Cherry. My only overriding question was he received the update at Arguello and I cannot resolve why he was there. Other than that Greg I am satisfied with the above course of events.

Alex Lewis

3/18/2016 05:49:37 pm

Well in regard to the timeline, where the two cops encountered each other ad/or Don encounters His, "White Male Adult", and Armond's "Gentleman", the two can't even agree and their stories be consistent on which stopped the other in their own collision.

Armond seems to recall it as: "At that point, ehh, Officer Don Fouke and what I believe was a rookie officer at the time, Eric Zelms. He called out to me, did I see anybody, did I know anything about where the suspect could be? I told Him "No."

Cut's stright to Fouke at this point in filmed interview & He recall's a very different encounter stating:

"Turned Southbound on Cherry Street, saw Armond Pellisetti one of the first officers at the scene, He stopped us and said that He was looking for The White Male that had just gone down the street."

So, Amond's version/claim: Fouke pulls up, asks Armond had she seen anyone or know where the suspect may mow be, or had gone and Armond says He replies "Nope" to both.

The Welsh One's observations and personal opinon = Armond is a naughty boy, Army is fibbing. Why? Well the witness,one of the youngsters from the party, Lynsey, has said in later post-crime years that She was urgently trying to tell Armond as He got there that the suspect was STILL VISIBLE walking away down Cherry.
Armond claims was His reason He had Immediately ushered them back to that Alcove was because, quote: "I didn't know if the suspect was still there!" Well you may not have it the instant you arrived, but Witness Lynsey was probably not "heading over to that cab" as He pulls up as He says, but rather to inform a cop ASAP that the suspect is still within view on Cherry and said Aromd didn't seem to get what she was saying, instead of asking Her after taking a few steps to look down this street asking "Is that Him??" while pointing at a figure just about to take a right and onto Jackson and armond then ushers them instead bk Home.

Rich I think we may have found our 'witmess in murder of Cab driver" who "Identified ********* as possible subject in this matter!

Lynsey the kid witness at the time is absolutely clear about running to Armond before He'd had chance to exit his car to check Paul and she explains her Urgency was due to Her still able to physically see guy He just 30 yards or so away, and Arond asks where anbd she,walks a few steps to enable view down Cherry, raised and pointed "There He is. I just watched Him exit and walk away from the cab."

Richard.....THAT IS WHY ARMOND COULDN'T GET TO THE RADIO TO ISSUE NOT A RACIAL ERROR UPDATE, BUT TO GET UNIT TO COM E UP JACKSON & CUT HIM OFF, THE SUSPECT HE HAS JUST BEEN GIVEN A POSITIVE ID ON!

Fk me it makes sense now! And Rich, here is the very scary outcome mate if that iswhat happened above....

The ID of a witness who has kept eyes on Him from moment He is first seen by Her, and He ius still withi view when pointing Him out to AP then Richard, there has been no mistaken ID and the man she pointed out, for which Armond dashed to His radio to b'cast something along the lines of: "ALL AVAILABLE UINITS RESPONDING TO CAB DRIVER HOMICIDE AT CHERRY SUBJECT IS ON JACKSON STREET, THAT JACKSON STREET HEADING TOWARD MAPLE! BE ADVISED, SUBJECT IS ARMED!

Rich, they stopped that very man because no other alternate exists because He is still there Rich as Armond arrives! THEY FKING KNOW WHO ZODIAC IS/WAS RICHARD BECAUSE THEY CAN'T NOT DO!

Remember Rich, AP get's there quickly cause he's fortunately close by anyway, so Zodiac has no time to escape because Armond has got eyes on the target, immediately "Let's e everyone else know.....where He, the positively identified WMA, is at that moment.
Don is first to come upon Him because He's fucking looking for Him!!

When Don Found who He was looking for, confusion fllods His mind because of who's face stares back at Him. Obe that is owned by He that really is, CRACK-PROOF!

Alex Lewis

3/18/2016 06:08:16 pm

That why Chief Lee said what He f'king said!

He's clumsy enough to not get away. Lee knows Him or of Him well enough to know the rumor of His Homosexuality and above all Rich, is how and why Lee is justified to declare 'Zodiac is Sane' which is Lee's own threat to who He knows the actual person Zodiac is. A kinda "We know the letters etc you wrote to give the impression you were psychotically ill, we know otherwise so get out of ur Area!

Richard

3/19/2016 12:38:51 am

Richard

3/19/2016 02:45:30 am

Another way of looking at it, irrespective of debates on the actual time, let us say Pelissetti and Fouke both receive the broadcast at the same time and we set the stopwatch off. Pelissetti arrives at Washington/Cherry and sees Zodiac up Cherry. This has to be approximately 1 minute after Zodiac left the taxicab, because Cherry only takes 1 minute to walk before Zodiac is out of sight. So if Zodiac had been in sight, it can be no more than a minute after he left the cab. But in 1 minute after Fouke got the broadcast Zodiac is at Washington and Maple and yo can't have both.
Just arbitrarily lets say Zodiac left the taxicab at 9.55 pm, he reaches Jackson/Maple at 9.58 pm. This is 1 minute from Fouke's starting point at Presidio Ave/Washington. That would mean Fouke received the broadcast at 9.57 pm. If Fouke therefore received the broadcast at 9.57 pm, then Pelissetti received the broadcast at 9.57 pm, as they both received it simultaneously. So if Zodiac left the taxicab at 9.55 pm, then Pelissetti received the broadcast 2 minutes after Zodiac left the taxicab, and still had to travel to the crime scene. So the child could never had Zodiac still in their eyeline, when Pelissetti approached and spoke to the kid. The only way this could happen, is if both officers received the initial broadcast at different times and that didn't happen. This is only my take however and I always respect your Royal Welshness on this matter. Maybe the Graysmith angle can be developed. Anyway the case for the Jackson/Maple defense team rests, over to the prosecution and the right honourable Alex Lewis Esquire.

Alex

3/19/2016 10:55:34 am

My only problem with this Alex is you said Lynsey still literally had eyes on Zodiac, when Pelissetti arrived. That means he would be visible in Cherry. Zodiac said he was stopped about 3 minutes after he left the taxicab, and Fouke said he saw suspect approaching Jackson and Maple."

Rich, Zodiac was there on Cherry when Armond pulled up, the witness says attests to telling Armond this as soon as He got there at that scene. Now if you don't a witness tellng us she told Armond He is on Cherry still as Armond got there maybe we can look to Fouke & His statement fof "He (AP) stopped us and said He was looking fo the White Male that HAD JUST GONE DOWN THE STREET", which s absolutely consistent in continuity in-as-much as: Armond arrives and is immediately accosted by a excited young witness telling Him "He's there, He's on Cherry St now (take couple steps to cherry corner) HIM, you see Him? Yeah that man who's turned right onto the next street over (Jackson)." And so, given this most crucial lead and Positive ID, AP can't get to his radio quickly enough to, "Let everybody else know" and the takes off after the guy. AP get's to nearing the end of Cherry and Don is arriving at Cherry Intersection on Jackson and Armond stops Don knowing Don has likely come this way based on AP's radio update.
As Armond then likely asks "Well? You see Him, You can't have missed Him He just went down the street Don, I just saw Him turn toward your direction...." At this point Don has just passed a man yes, stopped he car too and saw it was a false alarm cause that guy Armond is refering to is So-an-So the Higher up so Eric and He assumed and 2nd guesse themselves (Don's own words) that He in't who we are seeking. Armond reveals that the witness just saw Him do it, and upon His own arrival at the scene, was directed by witness to a WMA in the distance on Cherry.

Don's response? "Ohh, Shit! You mean So-an-So IS the suspect??"

Rich by the statement you make which I reference you seem to give the impression that Zodiac has no reasonn to lie here, and it's the witnesd who's lying or mistaken because if Z said the stop happens 3 mins after He left the cab then this is when it happens!
How far were the victims past Park HQ again? If we wen't One Mile east on columbus Prkway, would we find a public park?

If Zodiac isn't simply mistaken, then He's Simply lying! Did He tell us about this in Hs initial I am the murderer of the Taxi Driver. .." letter? Nope. He didn't want tell anyone what happened after He walks away from the cab and whether it was 3 minuites or 3 hours is irrelevant, He, The writer whp goes out of His own way to point out pole incompetence.... isn't mentioning this?

My point is Rich, We know all these prties are liars by a number of specific examples, Z, Don & Armond.

Come on Rich, could you look at me and say with all seriousness \and say "Alex the witness is not correct, Zodiac was gone when AP arrived Zodiac said 3 minutes at least, and so I believe that witness does not know what she's looking at & made a massive balls up.!

I'd proboly ask in reply: "What, a bit like that dispatcher she just been on the phone with?
We have witness seeing people who are not there and is ib a HUGE Panic on the phone to SFPD dispatcher frantic just screaming "HEEELLLPPP ME, MAN HURTING CAB DRIVER! WALKING AWAY ON CHERR STEET SEND SOMEONE TO GET THIS WHITE MALE, I SAY A WHITE MALE,,,," D'ptcher cuts in. .

"STAY ON THE LINE, I'LL SAVE YOU! .... 'ALL UNITS, ALL UNITCRIME IN PROGRESS, SUSPECT IS STILL ON SCENE!!! BOLO FOR BLACK MALE, I REPEAT, BLACK MALE ON CHERRSTREET! UPDATE, ALL UNITS BE ADVISED SUSPECT MAY NOT BE A BLACK MALE AND ACTUALLY BE AFRICAN AMERICAN AND ARMED.....

MAY THE GOOD LORD BE WITH US CAUSE WE CAN'T BE EFFECTIVE, NOT WHEN YOU HAVE A WITNESS HALLUCINATING ON LCD SEEING PEOPLE BOT REALLY THERE AND IT;S A JOB IT WAS NOT REAL PERSON CAUSE DISPATCHER GIVING ALL WRONG SUSPECT INFO ANYWAY

Richard of the defense team

3/19/2016 11:22:12 am

Alex you never fail to surprise me, we have been blabbing back and forth for years and you pull a big rabbit out of the hat by its furry white ears and say "She was urgently trying to tell Armond as He got there that the suspect was STILL VISIBLE walking away down Cherry."
Where the hell did you pull this holy revelation from. I have never read this before, please Alex (the great Randini) can you elaborate before I pop a blood vessel.

Richard

3/19/2016 11:38:04 am

Yes I realize now. The interview by a member of a forum.

"At this time, lindsey went downstairs to get a better look at what was happening, while one of the kids upstairs called the Police. Downstairs, the lights were off, so Lindsey knew he could not be seen from the outside. He got close to the window and watched his actions. He was shortly joined by Rebecca. They both watched and observed in silence as Z pushed the driver to an upright position behind the steering wheel, exited the car and walked around the rear of the car and opened the drivers door. Stein had fallen over onto the seat and Z pulled him back up into the seated position and had some difficulty keeping him upright. Once upright, he was seen to have a rag, or something like a handkerchief and began to wipe down the door area and leaning over the driver, part of the dashboard. Whe he was finished, Z calmly walked to Cherry St. and walked North.

Not many know this, but Lindsey (being 16. feeling immortal, and beleiving the susp to be armed with only a knife) ran out his door to see where Z was going. He ran to the corner of Cherry and watched as Z continued his casual pace right up to the corner of Jackson & Cherry.

At this exact point, the first SFPD car arrives with two officers. One, Palesetti, approached Lyndsey and tried to extract what was happening. The other officer went to the cab and found the bloody victim. While Palesetti asking questions, Lyndsey was trying to explain that the susp was in sight on Cherry St. By the time Palesetti got the point, they both looked and the Z was gone."

Which forum member interviewed the kids and how do we know it's 100% genuine and not hearsay, as they say in court.

Richard

3/19/2016 12:17:45 pm

Actually it changes very little;
"At this exact point, the first SFPD car arrives with two officers. One, Palesetti, approached Lyndsey and tried to extract what was happening. The other officer went to the cab and found the bloody victim. While Palesetti asking questions, Lyndsey was trying to explain that the susp was in sight on Cherry St. By the time Palesetti got the point, they both looked and the Z was gone."

By the time Pelissetti had got out of his car, asked his questions and eventually 'got the point', 90 seconds could easily have elapsed, by which time Zodiac was likely three quarters the way down Jackson where Fouke allegedly spotted him.
The only question now though, is how come Donald Fouke only reached the Jackson/Maple intersection in such a slow time.

Richard

3/19/2016 01:09:41 pm

This is the nearest I can get to make everything fit;
Pelissetti takes 30 seconds to arrive at crime scene.
Lyndsey at this point can see Zodiac approaching top of Cherry.
Pelissetti parks, ushers the kids, but eventually responds after 1 minute by looking up Cherry.
But now Zodiac has turned the corner and is 1 minute down Jackson (it is 2 mins long, so half way).
Pelissetti has now spent 1 and a half mins since broadcast.
Donald Fouke wasn't travelling at 35-40 mph all the time, because not only was he was likely scrutinizing the area and each intersection as he passed them. He had to cross the Jackson/ Walnut intersection, the Jackson/Laurel intersection, the Jackson/Locust intersection, and the Jackson/Spruce intersection, thereby slowing his journey down. My guess therefore, if Lyndsey is correct, that Donald Fouke is approaching the Jackson/Maple intersection 1 minute and 40 seconds after the broadcast, by which time Zodiac is over half way down Jackson, and as Fouke passes the intersection slowing down, Zodiac is nearing the intersection himself. This allows the Lyndsey claim and allows both Pelissetti's accounts to be correct. Here rests the defense.

Richard

3/19/2016 01:12:50 pm

That should have read;

This allows the Lyndsey claim and allows both Pelissetti's and Fouke's accounts to be correct. Here rests the defense.

Alex Prosecuting Attorney

3/20/2016 04:02:37 am

Rich Armond claims that Don stops and calls over to Him to inquire of Armond did He see anybody or know anything about where the suspect may be, and Armond says His response to this was a simple: "No."

Well He is lying and contradicting His own self here because He admits earlier "The witnesses told me that whoever had done this crime, left the cab, went out the door, appeared to be wiping down the cab and then AMBLING OR WALKING AWAY ALONG CHERRY St, kinda in the direction of the Presidio."

Yet He claims that moments later after when Don and Eric pull up to ask Him does He have any anything at all about where the suspect may have gone, Pelissetti would have use believe that He told Don in reply......"No."
Rich mate, Armond Pelissetti is lying! I am absolutely sure of it, because he's contradicting Himself for one. and secondly, if someone tells you something that they attest to being the truth, and that something they tell you doesn't make sense logically then, it's probably because it is not true.

For example, let us say I am at a fairground and all of a sudden I feel compelled to get an ice cream and urgently! There are, on scene at the fairground, 5 different Ice Cream Trucks to get my desired ice cream from right at hand and you know this too rich because lets say you visited the fairground the days previous. I come over to see you couple days later and you say: "Good event wasn't it Alex?" What would you think if in response I said: "No it f'ing wasn't! I didn't get to go on any rides myself because the kids wanted Ice Cream and I had to drive 18 miles to get them some! Wasn't happy!"

I think you first thing you'd think of is something like this: "Hmmm,well there were several Ice Cream vans at the fair, He had no need to drive anywhere to get ice cream....That doesn't make any sense to drive 18 miles when you don't need to drive 18 ft because the thing you want is right there."

Armond insists Richard that you must believe He drove the 18 miles, and I will keep reminding everybody that Armond has a police man's hat on, so to question anything He says and the truth thereof is simply Treason!

Richard

3/20/2016 04:45:59 am

"At this time, lindsey went downstairs to get a better look at what was happening, while one of the kids upstairs called the Police. Downstairs, the lights were off, so Lindsey knew he could not be seen from the outside. He got close to the window and watched his actions. He was shortly joined by Rebecca. They both watched and observed in silence as Z pushed the driver to an upright position behind the steering wheel, exited the car and walked around the rear of the car and opened the drivers door. Stein had fallen over onto the seat and Z pulled him back up into the seated position and had some difficulty keeping him upright. Once upright, he was seen to have a rag, or something like a handkerchief and began to wipe down the door area and leaning over the driver, part of the dashboard. Whe he was finished, Z calmly walked to Cherry St. and walked North."

I want to get to the bottom of this now Alex. If you believe Lyndsey seeing Zodiac walking up Cherry and trying to show Pelissetti, then this far longer observation has to have some merit. Robert Graysmith in his Zodiac book describes Zodiac opening the driver side door and leaning in.It says "The font passenger side of the cab opened, and eventually the heavyset man got out. He came around the cab, taking with him some sort of rag or towel, and began wiping down the driver's side door, the handle, around the outside mirror and the left passenger side. At one point he opened the driver's side door and leaned forward to wipe off the area of the dashboard again. To steady himself, he leaned his right hand on the rail separating the front and rear windows. Then he closed the door and walked away."

Now the kids also mention him opening the driver side door and wiping the dashboard area, but propping Stine up. My question has always been, if Zodiac, after shooting the taxicab driver had exited the right rear passenger door and entered the front right passenger door, ripped the piece of shirt and left the scene, there should be no reason to access the driver side door to maybe wipe down the dashboard area, likely including the steering wheel. The only reason could be to wipe away fingerprints. Now I can understand Zodiac not wanting to clamber over the blooded seats and Paul Stine to partially achieve this, so travels around the cab to clean thoroughly the dashboard area and both sides of the steering wheel. However this would mean Zodiac had likely had reason to touch the steering wheel prior to Washington and Cherry. In other words he must have had control of the vehicle in the nights proceedings, likely at Washington and Maple, where he claimed he murdered the taxicab driver, explaining why no shot was heard at Washington and Cherry, and why he had to wipe down this portion of the cab. The second unusual component of this, is if Zodiac was trying to place Paul Stine into an upright position, why, was he attempting to access both pockets, or was it simply the sadistic element of parading Paul Stine for everyone to see and increase the shock value to responding personnel. But opening the driver side door certainly explains the fingerprints and likely a Washington/ Maple murder.

Lord Alex of A Possible Welsh Ancestry

3/20/2016 06:31:50 am

I'm with you on Zodiac wiping down the steering wheel and other interior area's up front can be used, circumstantially anyway, to ague Zodiac was not only up front prior to His arriving at W & C Intersection, but up front at the wheel Himself. I agree also that Paul may just as likely been dispatched at the previous Intersection or, anywhere from the St Francis Hotel area up to it.
No I absolutely agree Rich that logic dictates that if He's wiping down the steering wheel, it isn't to wipe Paul's prints away but, most obviously, His own.

As to why He appeared to want to position Paul in any position, be it vertical in the driver seat or horizontal across passenger, whatever, we'll have to wait for Him to tell us because there will be a reason, but what it is can and probably is known only to him. Bit like His underlining of L AV in PauL AVerly. He did it for some reason, it's a Hint or clue to something but until He tells us what, well, just don't know.

I've said before Rich we are trying to understand, using our own logical thinking, why Insanity did something. You have to know Zodiac and get into His head to know why He did this and that.

That's why Rich, if you haven't read it already, I highly recommend reading 'This is the Zodiac Speaking: Into the mind of a Serial Killer' because David Van Nuys analysis is made based on the letters and the letters alone. The psychology of the writer, the state of mind the author of such letters is likely to be in, His child like comments etc is fantastic read mate, best I have read in regard to Zodiac because it is from a completely non bias point of view. Van Nuys doesn't have a theory on suspect A, nor supports the Idea of Z as Suspect B, He just gives His Professional opinion on the author and His writings.

I had to get it off Amazon due to the book not in any local libraries etc and cost me £27 which I wouldn't spend on 20 other books combined lol. But well worth the money. If you want to borrow it anytime just ask and I'll send it to you or a post office near you for pick up if you want. Saves paying for a copy buying online because as said, the book is not the cheapest.

Alex Lewis

3/20/2016 11:31:17 am

"I want to get to the bottom of this now Alex. If you believe Lyndsey seeing Zodiac walking up Cherry and trying to show Pelissetti...."

Absolutely believe the witness Rich Mate, no question in my own mind. I don't understand. Why should I question this?

I mean Rich, I'll ask then: Can you tell me the reason I shouldn't believe this witness? Reveal the motive? Witness would need one surely if they are lying about this part in the P. Heights event.

I can see motive for Fouke & Pelisetti to make up things that are not true like our most dumbest of dispatchers, I also question everything Zodiac says because He has motive to be dishonest but appears to mix truth with lies so to confuse even more and so The Cops are probably told not to say anything because if & when Police know their reputation and competence at stake and believe lying will save the day, then Lying will become the unofficial policy. Same with Z, He told lies intermixed with some truth and so: "I hope you have fun trying to figure out who I killed' and "If you think I am going to take on a school bus the way I said I was, you deserve to have holes in your head."

Maybe I am missing it Rich, what reason would the witness have to make this up about the suspect?

I mean look, the witness states one cop went directly to the cab, while the other took them back to the house. So, we have long wondered where Frank was during the episode in P. H Rich and you why we couldn't work it out Rich? Because we believed Armond was the one to go check the scene and Driver of the Cab because Armond told us this is what He Himself had done. And so we are wondering 'Well wheres Frankie Boy when all this happens, and turns out He was at the cab checling for signs of life and preserving the scene.

Now your free to believe Armond and His clajim but doing so will mean Armond knows Frank has Checked the cab, checked Paul for A pulse etc and Armond Decides He cannot trust Frank to determine anything, so goes over to the cab and needs to confirm Frank is correct by checking Paul Himself, people can and will believe everything Pelissetti says because He pulls a badge to prove he is not capable of lying! Armond could claim to be a reincarnated frog from The Banks of Egypt's Nile and some would answer... "WOW!! REALLY, THAT'S AMAZING MR FROG-MAN!"

Greg H.

3/16/2016 11:57:57 pm

"My only overriding question was he received the update at Arguello and I cannot resolve why he was there."
Richard, I believe he may have gone the full length of Jackson to its terminating point at Argruello because they didn't know whether the suspect may have turned right or left after proceeding up Cherry. This will allow them to canvass the greatest possible surface area, as Pellisetti was apparently already making his way up Cherry. In theory, Fouke could have just then made a left on Arguello, another left on Washington and he'd arrive at the crime scene.
Remember, all Fouke says is that they "proceeded on Jackson toward Arguello, continuing our search".. As he arrived at Arguello he received the update, so he then thought to turn up West Pacific and check the perimeter of the park hoping to find the WMA suspect they just past. Zodiac could have been hiding in some foliage watching the tail-lights of cop car drive away from him when he noticed it make an abrupt right turn onto West Pacific and into the park. Very easily he could have used this to his advantage and devised the story that he misdirected them. Additionally, as he saw them head into the park he could changed his escape route entirely and actually GONE AWAY from the park, knowing that's where they were looking.

Alex Lewis

3/17/2016 03:53:19 pm

Ok Gentlemen if this were a boxing bout then I as ref would be calling Time, 'Stop Boxing' and we've gone all 12 rounds & it's a draw.

But you know what Rich, Greg, reading over of your comment's here I a can see the advantage of The SFPD and how effective it is on their part to put out Version A, them amen it, then have another cop come along with version B, and basically as I have done with both of yourself Greg aswel as Rich,we're all debating who said what and where post event, who saw Z on Oct 11 and where?

We are being thrown distractions to debate, argue or consider and this is brilliant for them and Z Himself because while we are here running around trying to work put why timelines don't fit, how even if there were a BMA issued in error it wouldn't be relevant by the time Fouke rolls up to Maple because Pelissetti has issued His update a good 30 seconds to a minute before etc etc...,And STOP!q!!!

This is simply Misdirection keeping the us attempting to get to the bottom of why this has & why that etc when these things are exactly where they want you and to focus, lest we stop debating this here, disagreeing on that there and realize what's going on here and all stand as One and start pressuring them who actually Have the evidence and ability to do anything.

See if I walk into SFPD HQ alone as a One man Army with a megaphone, "We the people demand this DNA be tested from Case Z. The conspiracy of D. Fouke, A. Pelisdssetti is....." And I'd be tasered at this point and carted off to the detention facility.

Rich mate, you won't get the timeline to fit mate because the claims and statements are from Two cops that are concealing the truth about some specific part of this nights sequence.

And Rich, if you land the right answer mate, this will offend SFPD no end, then they'll change the question!

This clip here is quite amusing but it is exactly what the Government & Police will do to any person questioning their official claim

"I want to know more so plee...."
The Elite "If you don't accept this here that we say, well then your racist!"
"But I just reallt want to know...."
"If you don't do everything I tell you forever, your a racist. RACIST, RACIST, RACIST....!"

Link: https://youtu.be/EAOPNX0qZUY?t=2m22s

Richard

3/19/2016 10:36:19 am

I messaged Robert Graysmith yesterday hoping for an interview. I suppose I will be lucky if I get a response, he must have loads of people contacting him. We live in hope. Have you any ideas who we can contact in the case, even if they are on the fringe of it.

Alex and The Red Rabbit

3/20/2016 06:57:12 am

Nice 1 Rich, hope He agrees to speak to you. What's the worst He can do....say no. Nothing ventured, noting gained as they say.

Oh yes, now about my Rabbit that I pull from my hat, reserved for the most special of occasion I must make the following observations in responding:

I pulled my rabbit from my top hat this time to allow the cat out of the bag upon the street of Cherries. After pulling the rabbit out of a hat it caused surprise, the rabbit appearing for this very reason. The cat I let out of the bag Richard is going to cross the path of Pelissetti and that is a bad omen for Him, A sign of the Welsh One observing the Cat and declaring: "Ah-ha!! Got ya! You lying little shit-head you!"

Alex

3/20/2016 08:34:01 am

If you gave said to me I can have a one hour interview with any of the case's personally involved people, well I wouldn't be wasting time to think of my answer. . . . Mr D. Fouke would be my choice. Why, because from a personal perspective, I see sign's in 2007 that this man has a conscience and I would say to Don that if what I perceive you as and my comments slamming you as a lying SOB are misplaced and it's other peoples decisions that you are told peddle to the public, then I would owe Don and give Him my sincere apologies not only for my comments, but I am also sorry that they, whoever 'They' are, have given you this burden to carry around for almost half a Century that by the time 2007 rolls around, the interview given is by a man who clearly seems like He would rather be anywhere than there, and I see a man who right before He goes into the Z waking odd & turning up steps, looks down and a clear and audible sigh is heard being made by Don before He starts to speak about His encounter this night.
You know I can almost envision Don just as much looking down, letting out the exasperated Sigh and looking back up and saying: "You know what, this is just all Bull Shit. I can't do this anymore. You wanna know who the Zodiac is? Just go ask. . "

How much time do we have left before we hear the reported news travel around our little democratic Z Community "It it with sadness that we must announce the passing of Donald Fouke?" Same for Armond and other critical people involved.

Unfortunately, and this is something I learned from The Intelligence Community that is considered 'Highly Sensitive Intelligence' which declares: 'The availability of an individual to a answer questions is limited once that person is deceased.'
Now that theory above is one that I have suspicions may be on to something!

To return to seriousness i'll end this post by speaking, Hypothetically anyway, to Don Fouke:

I myself Don have no proof, only instinct for my believing that your the owner of information you never asked be given you. This is some knowledge that you wished was not yours to know. The burden of proving something lies with He who asserts, but the Burden that you clearly have Don is far greater than mine. The truth of something concealed is in itself a burden upon a person that knows of it, yet is not permitted to reveal what He knows to the general public so that this burden be removed. If that's what people in other higher places have forced you to do and retain a heavy and unwanted burden for almost 50 years then all I can do Don is say to you: I'm really sorry, and I can only feel such empathy for any man made to carry a burden so heavy and immoral.

Alex Lewis

3/21/2016 02:20:16 pm

If He does reply ask our Former Chronicle employee; "Now, Bob, this next question come from, errrrr, comes from Wales and Wales Asks:

Good Day and all that nicety crap and now, Bob, Robert...Bobert! What method did you use to decipher your the 340 and, while I know you acknowledge it is not a word for word decrypted, but a basic message is seen forming. Any personal idea's, if the message is accurately decoded, who the 'FOOLS' are in His "THOSE FOOLS SHALL MEET THE KILLER, PLEASE ASK LUNDBLAD?

Alex Lewis

3/20/2016 01:19:37 pm

Rich what we here that they, the authorities, are admitting they know the name of that guy the witness pointed to as respomsible.

We have alluded many times to seeing on occasion, people (myself included) put two and two together to come up with 5.
Richard, this time it is 2 plus 2, or witness on scene saying suspect was on Cherry and pointted this out to Armond, plus the FBI Report "Witness in the murder of cab driver identified. . ,. then give a name of a specific person = Zodiac named.

Rich, can we agree that if the kid told Armond the responsible is still in range of visibility on Cherry and then points to A Male walking down Cherry and mouths "That's the Man there, He is the one that did it! I just watched Him walk away!" Would you agree Rich, this is classed and would be described in reports as "Positive Identification of the suspect? Anytime a witness points and says "That's the man", whether it be in a line up or on the street, that A Positive ID!

Well, this is mentioned in that FBI report and this is the bit where by default, you cannot say that Armond and/or Don don't knw who they saw that night because The person's Name Richard is im the FBI report. "Witness identified REDACTED-NAME as possible subject in the matter."

How the fuck can they refer to Him by Name, nobody knows who He is nor got His details remember! Yet there He is,. staring at us from beneath a covered up name, cover up being what this is.

Rich, I have never certain and I will agree to bet anything your choosing that the FOIA I have pending will not come back revealing that redacted Name, and you know why it won't Richard? Because that is the name of the Zodiac!

Alex "I'm all in" Lewis

3/20/2016 02:30:56 pm

Rich, I said previously that I would never put all my eggs into one basket, I recant this and changed my mind, I am a keen poker player and if this were a Texas Hold'em....I'm all in with this hand. The name in that FBI report, it isn't just any name that reveals Zodiac, but there is something far bigger and sinister in play here and that Name Rich, if we lifted to peek under the redact....., well I will put everything on this. it isn't going to be a name that when read will mean nothing.

Rich they have gone to this trouble and effort all these years to pretend "No WMA spoken to on night of incident, Nobody found in area, AP speaks with individual who he's doesn't get name of, Fouke and his suspect last observed going North on Maple and this is fact and off with the heads of any skeptics who dare raise an eyebrow at this, I am not saying again He turned into the entrance way of A House! Oh shit! What did say last time? Nth on Mple? Ohh fk! Oh i've enough of lying!"

All this for Mr Nobody what works in the factory that is a loner? I laugh at the very idea. Who He is, don't know. However, if you asked me 12 months back or more did I think there is any chance we may discover, Ermmm I dunno off top of my head...Mel Belli, go with Him just as example, was actually Zodiac i'd have thanked you making me laugh vey much on that day. Now, I'm going to say that name will be someone who is not only known to us, but the name of a person we associate with The Good Guys on the other side, not necessarily a cop but someone who when you see that Name, immediate response will be disbelief!

How can such a thing? Because they won't go to the ends of the Earth to keep this covered up for simple incompetence by a couple of cops on One Night in October.

Now I don't ask for, nor need any, support of a second third and fourth to agree with me, I am happy to stand alone in this opinion that i'm all to aware is controversial but I will invite those who read this and determine "Conspiracy Theorist idiot" please feel free to tell say that. This is the you must bestow upon me because that is what the Government have told you to call someone who won't behave and accept what we say as truth and this Welsh F***er here is asking for proof that He knows we have! The release of Mr Redact!

I demand proof that I am a whatever name you want to label under the banner of, all you need do is release the name and it's that Easy and simple to for them to show via evidence and proof positive that Alex, i'm afraid, is a fkin moron and completely wrong!

I look forward to being made to look idiotic and proven wrong....I shall be here waiting!

Richard (not a conspiracy theorist)

3/20/2016 03:23:24 pm

The witness (ie; 8 year old) I guess you are putting separate to the three teenagers. Therefore Lyndsey is not the witness. Furthermore if you believe the redacted name is Zodiac, then that comprehensively rules out Kjell Qvale, as the redacted name is 6 letters long and nothing in his name is 6 letters long, plus an 8 year old girl would unlikely know how to spell it. Are you saying the FBI report is pretending it was an 8 year old as cover or the 8 year old witness, is the actual witness and it has nothing to do with the observations of the teenagers. Let us hope you get the redacted name and it reveals something, but if it is just a first name, it may reveal little. Why though even put this in the FBI report, if it was such a delicate matter, as opposed to just keeping it in house. I am not doubting your conviction Alex, it would be great if you are right, but we are both agreed on the fact something stinks about the whole affair. What I cannot understand is the fact we can both agree that a Washington and Maple shooting is likely, due to redacted face wiping down the driver side compartment area. If we can work this out using simple common sense, why didn't the police. It's as simple as 2+2=5.

Mr A. Lewis, Broadmoor Resident.

3/20/2016 05:48:56 pm

Well firstly Id like to say thank you to Peter Sutcliffe for showing me around the Facility where I now live. It turns out there is a clause in the mental health act that allows for the sectioning of people called The 'Don't you fu*king Dare!' Act of 2013. If the Government tell you A, B and C are actually X, Y and Z, then don't you fu*king question it or you shall be placedf in A 'High Security Mental Health Facility.' or Nut-House Lunatic Asylum before political correctness went mad.

One up-side though, wonderful food served here! I had Wall-Paper for Breakfast this morning with The Yorkshire Ripper, charming Gentleman if one may say so who's Human Right are abused every day Richard because this Gentleman is denied the right to own, have possession, or be within 50 Yards of any tool that remotely resembles a Hammer. I know! It's absolutely disgraceful!

I must say though, they seem aware here in this place with razor wire 15 ft fences, that their new resident was Hugely Famous because 3 people asked me for my autograph upon arrival, sign this please, can you also sign over on the reverse etc and then I was welcomed into the Family by.....oh what they call themselves...ohh it's on tip of my.....AHH, yes that's it, 'The Emergency Response Strap Down Team.'
They were nice enough to promise me that this was a sedative to calm me down and they assured me that No, we give you our word Alex, you are not being taken to The Death House to be Executed by Lethal Injection!

Anyway I must go now to inform Peter there's a conspiracy to violate His Human Rights by removing access to Lump Hammers. How is the man going to hang up His framed Pictures? Bastard Government!

Richard (still not a conspiracy theorist)

3/20/2016 03:39:08 pm

"I look forward to being made to look idiotic and proven wrong....I shall be here waiting!"
If the FBI freedom of information act has any say in it, you could be waiting a long time. So if you are made to look idiotic (which I would never say Alex), it might be when your 70, and you won't give a damn then anyway. Anyway let's hope you get a reply soon my friend.

Mr Lewis, Chief Nutcase on D-Wing

3/20/2016 08:04:26 pm

Good Morning Ladies, Good Morning Gentlemen, Good Morning Voigt... Now this next post will be rather like my personality, Split in two....

Well to get back to being Serious Rich, I never said I fully believed in the idea or theory of Mr Qvale the Zodiac. I said Rich in the post, Who He actually is, Don't know obviously and don't have A particular person in mind. What I do know Rich is this:

Witness states that upon first response vehicle pulling up on scene, the suspect Himself is still in view on Cherry and the Witness immediately dashes to that cop to tell Him that the man who did this is just there on the street, and then, it is stated, Pelissetti forgets how to speak English and does not understand the witness pointing toward Cherry St and saying:
"OFFICER! He's down by there....LOOK, He's right there!!"
Armond had ushered them back home because, like He told you Rich, He didn't know if the suspect was still there you see.....despite immediately being told several times that He, The Suspect, is over there on Cherry Street.

My BS detector says Rich, AP understood very well and this witness here directs Armond's attention to the White Male Adult on Cherry with a question of His own: "Are you absolutely sure that's Him down there?" And He was given the response 'YES!"

The FBI little PS Footnote of no importance words it to suggest the person who identified **Mr Who's-it** as possible subject responsible is the one that they refer to as witness in murder of Cab Driver.
Rich, if you are asking me to consider this is a witness other than the one screaming at Pelissetti that the guy is still visible down the street there, and that a 2nd independent witness came from somewhere & it was them that Identified Mr Who's-it as subject responsible then, while very possible, I don't see likely.

" Furthermore if you believe the redacted name is Zodiac..."

No question in my Mind Rich that the Name in that File is the Zodiac, the pointing to A person confirming for police: "Yes, that's the man who just exited cab and walked down the street, 10 seconds before you pulled up is a little bit f'ing significant to forget to mention!.

If the police never were told on scene Richard that anyone was responsible nor identified by A witnesses then how did they have a name to record as the person identified by witness on scene as responsible? Where did the suspects name get determined?
If the witness pointed to a WMA saying that man there, yes Him, He just left the cab but He's gone before police can catch up or head Him off on Jackson then.....AHHH-HA!! GOT IT! . . "Witness in murder of cab driver identified PERSON as possible subject in this matter."

If nobody stopped the man that is basically still there when first cops start showing up, then how can they know and refer to anyone by Name that a witnesses has identified as being responsible? Surely Richard the statement should read that witness on scene pointed to A White Male in distance turning off Cherry onto Jackson, however, police main priority is preservation of Life and after going to the aid of the driver before going after suspect, He was nowhere to be seen.. ." and they have A Description.

Now if the kid at the scene is not responsible for officers going after & determining the man's identity this night and the assumption will simply be that the witnesses likely was shown 6 photo's in a line up the next day, and ID'd No.4 as the man at the cab then how can police know to add Him in an photo-line up when nobody has given, nor did they themselves get, the Identity of the man?

How long haven I been saying that the redacted Name is significant and crucial lead to pursue? I don't ask that Rich with ego bouncing off walls mate,. it's simply Rich that old instinctive logic again that told me from the moment I came across that FBI Doc. that makes reference to a named person identified by witness as responsible I knew instantly Rich that to never have them even bring this ID by witness in a passing remark, or declare an man was arrested, had an Air Tight Alibi (For Example) and released without charge, that fact that this was conveniently absent from the one page post crime rpt just told me that instant something uis very wrong here!

People will dash to the defense of The Blue Meanies by pointing out: Well it was no secret Alex, you yourself say it was written in A official police document. . ." I will have to point out that, actually, it was not written in a document or report, but a memo from Sacramento to PD to FBI. Memo, the piece of paper and it's content for circulation within or between branches of one Agency or Dpt.

Welsh Chappie not Happy!!

3/20/2016 08:42:19 pm

In regards to the reference made of the witness being "eight year old..."

I brought this comment up and the document with Harvey Hines Brother, Oliver because He told me He himself was A Police Officer bck around that time and I knew He'd talked to Harvey at Length about this case and wondered if He knew of this Doc & Witness ID? Oliver said He had not known of this and without my asking Him, said He thought it was odd and suggested that the police may have looked at Him & cleared Him but said He agreed that such a big lead/break in the case would likely in His expertience have got at least a mention on a the news,or a mention in the printed press.

Then oliver said something that I did not even think of or read as meaning anything other than Eight being the age of the witness and Oliver said: "It could also be due to the witness identification being Eight Years later or after the crime happens."

I said "Excuse me? Come again? Are you implying the it is to be read and interpreted as time gone by rather than it being a reference to their age!! He said that's how reads it, adding that after Eight years have passed, a positive ID is not given anywhere near the seriousness it would get the day after, for example. and if Eight is a ref. to witnesses age, then, He said, it should read as "Witness of Eight years of Age....."

I don't thin it's a reference to time elapsed but age of witnesses personally.

Alex Lewis

3/21/2016 11:01:47 am

To be honest and serious though Rich, I don't think you can say anyone who question the Official Reports by the police and suggest that they may be lying here and all this a 'Theory' of any sort becaus Don and Armond contradict each other over and over, say the other is lying and. . . .

AP - "That memo (of Don's) and what He told me do not coincide"
AP: - "However, in subsequent conversations with Him (with Don) He told me that He did stop somebody. . . ."
DF - "We Never stopped the man, never talked to him. . . "

Are there are a dozen more I could allude to but the examples above are enough to get the idea.

Hardly a theory that someone here is conspiring to lie, is it?

Alex Lewis

3/21/2016 01:27:26 pm

Well, Rich, I apologize in advance for having to be the One to tell; you. . . You are a conspiracy theorist because you & I conspire almost daily Rich to find the truth and get to the bottom of this case and we have many many theories along the way.

Now I know this diagnosis can come as a huge shock, but someone has to do it Muhahaha!

No but there's no story to be told on Jackson Richard, when the Witness Lindsey ends recalling that nights evens He get's up to the part where Armond takes off after A WMA /Zodiac along Cherry St before Lindsey ends with this comment: "What happened Next, well, that's to be told another day. . . "

So you see Rich don't you how nothing occurs because if it did, Mr Armond V. Fell-off-Settee would be running here to tell us.

And please Richard, do not start wondering How they named A man as identified by witness as the Zodiac, because U said so. I mean next you'll be asking why no arrest was made, no suspect interviewed, after witness Identifies a suspect in A Homicide Investigation!

Wait a second. . .

Alex BBC Breakfast footage!

3/20/2016 08:55:53 pm

BBC were filming for documentary on Broadmoor and here is my big scene, I am calling myself 'MR Renfield' cause I am very sane and so, without further delay Rich, you simply have to watch my scene.....

https://youtu.be/RKbr8arXVJM

Alex The Welsh Dragon....Den

3/20/2016 09:59:52 pm

Richard, now it will be a great honor and privilege for yourself to be invited by myself to accompany me in my upcoming appearance on 'Dragons Den' to pitch my concept. If you refuse this offer Rich I shall assume you are Racist. If you don't agree with my opinion, then your obviously racist.In fact if you don't agree with everything I say, followed by doing everything I tell you to. . . . RACIST!

Now I shall do the talking and pitch the Business Model, you just stand by my side and look impressed at everything I say and give it the odd: "Very true Alex' & then start crying and declare your sorry but my par-de excellence moves you to tears and then, pass out on the floor. Then when you come round I will begin the pitch pretending to be a posh person......

Good Haurrffffternoon Dragons. My Name is Alex, His Name is Not. We are wesident's, I say we are Wesident's of A Communatehhhh, called the Zewwdeeeeiac Communatehhh and we dewn't have intewest in any Scorrrtish Opinion, so fuuuuke horrrf Duncan?

Alex - Return of Serious the One

3/21/2016 02:07:14 am

Right lets take the account of it appears in print in statements made many years later. Firstly the witness Lindsey is a 16 year old young man that I mistakenly referred to as 'Lynsey' the female witness. This is a wonderful start when your claiming this man here who's name is redacted is, without doubt, the Zodiac which is obviously true because I am so credible and competent that I cannot even get the gender of a witness correct, which I have a one in two chance to get right by guessing alone! Now let us immediately move, Lol....

The statement suggests that Lindsey had gone out if the door just after The Zodiac walk away on Cherry, but just before the first response car arrives on scene. Lindsey, in 20 or 30 seconds prior to this first cop car arriving had ran across the street and watched the man continue to walk casually and was heading toward the intersection of Jackson when the Unit arrives.

As the two cops exit, Peda heads directly to the cab, while Armond walks straight over to Lindsey to ask Him what's going on. Now here is where you almost have to suspend reality to believe that Armond did not see the suspect because:

- Armond is now standing with Lindsey at the Washington Intersection on Cherry when Armond asks Lindsey what's going on? Lindsey answers by pointing and telling Armond that He watching the suspect who, Lindsey repeats several times to Armond, is still; visible as He is almost at the Jackson Intersection and despite them both standing on Cherry with witness several times declaring He's watching the suspect who just there down the street in sight, Cop does not understand and fails to see anyone which, He'd need be staring directly down at the floor the entire time for Himself not to see Zodiac. L O FU***** L

Comments are closed.

INTO WEST PACIFIC AVENUE

Archives