THE TIMELINE OF ARMOND PELISSETTI

4/5/2018

Armond Pelissetti (2007)

Here we will take another look at the timeline of Presidio Heights from the perspective of Armond Pelissetti, to show how incredibly tight the whole affair is. We will use the police report from the following morning and the claims of Armond Pelissetti in the 2007 Zodiac documentary to create the only viable timeline based on what has been stated. These are their words, not mine.
Armond Pelissetti received the police dispatch at approximately 9.58 pm and likely exited his police car at around 9.59 pm- at which point one of the Robbins kids, who spotted Zodiac in and around the taxicab that night- pointed out to Armond Pelissetti that Zodiac was approaching the intersection of Jackson and Cherry Street. This being the case, then Zodiac is at this intersection at 9.59 pm. Armond Pelissetti then ushered the children across the street to their residence. He then proceeded back to the taxicab and checked the status of Paul Stine, stating in the documentary he was 99% sure the taxicab driver was deceased. He then retook the description from the children and was now aware it was a white male adult, so "couldn't get to the radio fast enough" to inform the other officers of the amended description. He then likely set off up Cherry.
These were his exact words in the 2007 documentary:"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."
Nobody knows for sure how long all these actions took, but a bare minimum of 2 minutes spent at the crime scene seems a reasonable estimate. This would have Armond Pelissetti beginning his journey north on Cherry Street at 10.01 pm.

This timeline has Armond Pelissetti arriving at Jackson and Maple at 10.06 pm, allowing him enough time to return back the the crime scene.

Now we shall flip the timeline backwards using two points of reference. The first is from the police report countersigned by Armond Pelissetti on October 12th 1969. It stated "P.E.H. ambulance #82 responded, steward Dousette, victim was examined and pronounced dead at 10:10 pm. Inspector Krake responded and summoned dog units and a fire department 'spotlight' vehicle to assist in the search. R/Os called for the Crime Lab, Coroner, Yellow cab officials, and a tow." This section of the police report tallies perfectly with Armond Pelissetti's recollection in the 2007 Zodiac documentary as he approached Maple Street "I turned to the right and saw a man walking his dog. He was somewhat older than the description I had, a whole lot thinner and he had absolutely no blood on his clothes." After a brief discussion with the man, Armond Pelissetti continued "I got back to the scene, and it was sometime shortly thereafter that the ambulance crew, the coroner, a firetruck, Inspector Walt Krake of the homicide detail, and then about three or four or five minutes thereafter Inspector Dave Toschi and Bill Armstrong, two of the best, arrived."

It can be seen that by marrying these two statements that Armond Pelissetti arrived back at the crime scene "sometime shortly" before the ambulance crew arrived, who "pronounced Paul Stine dead at 10:10 pm." This would place Armond Pelissetti arriving back at the crime scene at a reasonable estimate of 10.08 pm.
Therefore, Armond Pelissetti left the crime scene at 10.01 pm and arrived back at approximately 10.08 pm. According to the widely held consensus and the storyline of the 2007 Zodiac documentary, Armond Pelissetti traveled up Cherry Street (which is a 1 minute journey at normal walking pace) extremely cautiously, checking the alcoves and parked cars "following every technique I knew so I didn't get my head blown off." He then supposedly bumped into Officer Donald Fouke (whether it was on his outbound or inbound journey is irrelevant on this occasion). He then presumably applied the same caution down Jackson Street (a 2 minute journey at normal walking pace), checking the alcoves and vehicles, before bumping into a man walking his dog on Maple Street. He had a brief conversation with the dog-walker, before heading back on the 3 minute journey to the crime scene, now presumably at normal walking speed. This whole sequence of events taking just 7 minutes.
The journey from the crime scene to the intersection of Jackson and Maple is approximately 3 minutes, a fact even confirmed by Zodiac: "2 cops pulled a goof abot 3 min after I left the cab." But if Armond Pelissetti was using every police technique he knew, checking the innumerable alcoves and parked vehicles, this journey must have taken at least 5 minutes. This would have placed Armond Pelissetti arriving to the dog-walker at about 10.06 pm. He then had just 2 minutes to talk to the dog-walker and arrive back at the crime scene at 10.08 pm, sometime before the ambulance arrived and eventually pronounced Paul Stine dead at 10.10 pm. We can throw in some leeway here and have Armond Pelissetti arriving back at 10.09 pm, giving him three minutes to converse with the man on Maple Street and return back to the intersection of Washington and Cherry. Nevertheless, it is an extremely rushed affair, considering Armond Pelissetti's outbound journey of 5 minutes or inbound journey of 3 minutes, also included talking to the dog-walker and Officer Donald Fouke.

After some grueling and labor intensive detective work on my part, I was able to track down Fido, the dog from that night, and you can tell by his expression on the right, he wasn't impressed with the timeline I presented to him either. Or the suggestion his owner was a cold-blooded killer. I stroked his furrowed brow, made my excuses and left the kennel with my tail between my legs.
But in all seriousness, this drives to the heart of the question posed by some- was the dog-walker somehow the killer? Without debating the legitimacy of suspects- if Kjell Qvale was the owner of Fido, then he had to depart the intersection of Jackson and Cherry Street at 9.59 pm (going on the sighting of the three teenagers with Pelissetti), and travel approximately 3 minutes to be firmly ensconced in his 3636 Jackson Street residence. He then needs about 1 minute to return to the area of Maple to be spotted by Armond Pelissetti. This allocation of 4 minutes shifts the time to 10.03 pm, leaving Kjell Qvale three minutes to enter his home, change clothes, put Fido on his leash and leave the residence. He would then arrive to the meeting with Armond Pelissetti at approximately 10.06 pm.
The timelines of Armond Pelissetti and Kjell Qvale are possible, albeit extremely rushed. However, this is nothing new for the Zodiac case.

50 Comments

Shawn

4/5/2018 08:48:02 am

I have a hard time believing a mostly sane person would walk their dog and risk being targeted as a suspect after killing Stine.

Richard

4/5/2018 09:01:16 am

I suppose one would ask, how "mostly sane" was he. I don't buy the dog-walker angle, but each to their own. I don't like debating suspects- it invariably always ends in tears.

Lemonboy

4/5/2018 08:49:08 pm

The dog walker angle is sketchy at best. Any theories Richard on why no one reported a gunshot in a residential area? The dog walker looks awfully close to the Washington and Maple where Zodiac claimed he killed Stine

Ray Jenkins

4/6/2018 04:45:16 pm

"I don't like debating suspects- it invariably always ends in tears."

Add to that "cipher solutions and conspiracy theories".

Never a truer word spoken from one who so often speaks the most truthful words.

If we attack any such solution or theory critically and analytically then the author of said cipher solution or conspiracy theory will automatically mistaken this for an attack against their own person. Such an attack will invariably be taken as a personal insult. Then comes the very personal and hate-filled personal attack as a reply. Been there, done that, too many times.

One cannot rationalize the irrational nor argue with those who claim to know the mind of Zodiac. It is like arguing with a zealous religious person who believes they have an intimate understanding of the mind of God. One would have more luck trying to convince a flat-Earther that the earth is actually an imperfect oblate ellipsoid-spheroid shape, even though the proof against a flat Earth is now overwhelming, and has been so for a very long time.

A very wise saying indeed, Richard. One that I might consider hanging over my bed in fact.

I find the rational world far more exciting than the "what if", highly subjective world of fantasy and mythology. But each to their own I suppose.

Strangely it has nothing to do with IQ or laziness. Sometimes the most intelligent and astute people will come to invent elaborate theories that have enormous gaps in them the size of the Grand Canyon. Even cops and detectives sometimes reach conclusions based on their own biases and lacking any real evidence, circumstantial or otherwise. Some of these theories can be quite elaborate and long-winded, covering entire libraries of books and documentaries, and as such may even begin to seem plausible because they have taken on a life of their own... until we dig a bit deeper and examine them analytically. Then we find they are often just baseless theories that have been recycled over and over by like-minded people and embellished over time and, moreover, they can never, ever, ever, ever be proven. This is in fact the glue that holds such theories together. The fact that they cannot be proven becomes like a surrogate "proof" in itself.

When it comes to crime, if anyone takes a baseless theory to court they soon find out what happens to it. As a general rule it gets thrown out, unless the judge is corrupt or incompetent.

Drew

4/6/2018 05:41:58 pm

I hear ya Ray, but just because only one disreputable source makes an unprovable claim doesn't mean that unprovable claim isn't true. The answer to the Zodiac identity may indeed lie in the testimony of a liar. Graysmith's speculations and interviews for example are tempting to discount as baseless opportunistic baloney, as are the claims of so many of the self-published authors that followed, but unfortunately in the Zodiac case (though it may be the most publicly documented cold case in American history) there are often still not enough known facts to properly dismiss even the most outrageous claims. That said I too get tired of the petty arguments that tend to break out over conflicting theories. The problem of course is that all of this Zodiac business was designed to drive us nuts!

Ray Jenkins

4/7/2018 04:37:49 pm

Ummm, Graysmith presented a plausible and logical theory based on his research of the facts and circumstantial evidence. There were large gaps, yes - Graysmith was originally a cartoonist before becoming a researcher and writer. But at least he presented a theory. He did not present a conspiracy theory. There is a BIG difference.

Quote: "just because only one disreputable source makes an unprovable claim doesn't mean that unprovable claim isn't true."

Conspiracy theorists use those kinds of well-worn lines all the time in order to give their theories a kind of legitimacy. It provides them with a blanket justification for their poor understanding of logic, rationality, and scientific method.

When questioned critically they often react emotionally by saying things like "Well prove me wrong!". Of course this is impossible because there is no way to prove something right or wrong if it cannot be proven in the first place, and if the entire premise has been based largely on scattered ideas based on a biased take on reality and a host of unprovable assumptions, often with monumental gaps in between. Instead of presenting evidence in a logical way that leads to something, they generally work backwards. A tenant of good science is that the evidence and logic is sufficiently sound for the conclusion to become self-evident, not vice versa. Conspiracy theorists have a tendency to begin with a conclusion and latch on to it after researching the topic highly subjectively and selectively. Then they present a suite of assumptions and ideas as if to prove their conclusion. This is simply very bad logic and few of scientific mind will ever buy into their fantastic theories.

Occasionally conspiracy theorists do turn out to be correct, but this is due more to sheer dumb luck than the quality or diligence of their research.

Drew

4/7/2018 08:26:29 pm

I do like Graysmith's work. Zodiac is a great read and he did a lot of incredible research and he's one of the main reasons people still study the case. He clearly slanted a lot of things but I learned a lot from it. I also like a good conspiracy theory for that matter. It's irresponsible to speculate publicly about whether someone is a murderer though and it's seldom convincing when people cite things as facts when they clearly are not in any way documented.

Lemonboy

4/5/2018 08:55:44 pm

I in no way believe the dog walker was involved but kinda hard to wrap my head how no one heard either a gun shot or seen or heard a car driving erratically as it would’ve been if Zodiac shot Stine on Washington and maple and had to take control of the car ending up on Washington and cherry.

Tom

4/6/2018 06:36:30 am

A gun shot from inside an auto would be significantly muffled. Someone with some ballistic experience could shed a lot of lite on this issue.

John

4/6/2018 02:29:30 pm

Zodiac could have used a silencer on the gun.

Ray Jenkins

4/6/2018 04:52:47 pm

Hi Lemonboy, Having been close to a major crime and several minor crimes in the past, I know for a fact that people will always say they heard nothing. They don't want to be involved. Don't want to be dragged in as witnesses. Don't want to become potential targets of the killer. Don't want the police and media attention. Don't want a crime that had nothing to do with them interfering with and complicating their lives. It is Sergeant Shultz syndrome. "I see/hear NOTHING! I know NOTHING! NOTHING!!"

Rubislaw 32 link

4/6/2018 02:31:09 am

I believe the problem,Lemonboy,is in the interpretation of,what actually ''went down'' that evening.

Over the years,it appears more and more apparent that the public have not been privy,to all the information.

I have read and heard,on a number of occasions,that a gunshot was heard.But not universally in the neighbourhood.It could be,for example,that sound waves were emitted....but only in a particular direction.

In addition that,''Mr.X'' was only a suspect,in that he was perceived,as possibly being a ''signalman'' for the man that actually murdered Stine.The implication that investigating police,have known,all along,that it was geographically or physically,impossible for ''Mr X'' to have executed Stine.

The official documentation,it would seem....is not the whole story.

Shawn

4/6/2018 12:35:58 pm

I am kinda surprised a gunshot was not heard by many.

It was Oct. 11 and the high was 73 with a low of 57 at the airport.

I imagine by 10 p.m. it was in the 60's and the Taxi windows were probably rolled up. So maybe the sound of gunshot was partially muffled by the enclosure of the car itself.

I also wonder if Stine's head acted like a silencer. If the barrel was put firmly behind his ear and against his head? Or could Zodiac actually have used a Silencer?

Speaking of Dogs. Dogs are very sensitive to popping sounds. 4th of July is when most dogs run away.

Did the man with the dog notice his dog acting stressed at any time?

Richard

4/6/2018 01:16:59 pm

If he didn't use a suppressor, then like you said Shawn the close contact wound acted like one. If it didn't completely suppress the sound of the gunshot, it may have made it less recognizable as one. The teenagers said they didn't hear a gunshot, but could equally have been drawn to the window by a sound outside they heard, but didn't recognize it as a firearm.

Drew

4/6/2018 01:45:02 pm

It is interesting that although the Robbins didn't consciously register hearing a shot they were for some reason alerted to the outside activity almost immediately upon the cab's arrival at Wash and Cherry. It could be that they did hear an odd indiscernible sound outside their window. As the attacker's weapon had not yet been determined when Rebecca called in, the mental connection that the sound that aroused their attention was likely a gunshot was not made. Unless one of the kids was just passing by the front window moments after the cab's arrival it seems that they were likely somehow cued to the situation aurally. Depending on the layout of the Robbins' upper level it could also be that they were altered by the shine of headlights, but as the headlights wouldn't have shone directly into their window for more than an instant this seems unlikely to me. Unless we return to the theory that Zodiac committed the murder nearer to Maple as he wrote in the Stine letter I bet the kids did hear something that caught their attention.

Ray Jenkins

4/6/2018 04:55:25 pm

Shawn, refer my comment above. Sergeant Shultz syndrome. "I see/hear NOTHING! I know NOTHING! NOTHING!!"

Tom

4/6/2018 06:31:45 am

So how likely is it that someone known to SFPD would mail in a piece of the victim’s shirt? Not only that he claimed to have tricked the police and just to prove it was him mails in the evidence. The teenagers seem to be the only ones involved that gave an accurate and consistent account of what they did and what they saw. The trained observers can’t give a consistent report of their movements or what they saw.

Rubislaw 32 link

4/6/2018 08:08:05 am

Yes,I think we are fairly sure that the scribe with the shirt swatch was the perpetrator,Tom.

But there are some assumptions made,that are not necessarily,the ''whole truth'',of the matter [?].

It seems likely that the teens,are the only ''visual'' witnesses,for example.

But there may have been further clues,offered to the cops,like the hearing of a gun shot.

The cab was a veritable reverberation chamber....but,if only part of one window open....there would have been some sound emission....and in,at least some direction.

Drew

4/6/2018 10:34:14 am

Hi everyone, this is really getting into the minutia of things that likely won't get us an inch closer to the truth and I won't be offended if no one cares to engage in this tomfoolery but I am up for a little ramble...

Alex Lewis brought up an interesting question recently which I had not considered. After returning to his patrol car to correct the dispatch why did Pelissetti choose to leave the car to carefully and slowly investigate the Cherry Street alcoves on foot? As quick as the response was surely the expectation would have been that the killer was at least a block away and still on the move when Pelissetti arrived.

If Linsey informed Armond that the killer had just rounded the corner at Jackson and disappeared wouldn't it have been safer and more efficient to have taken the patrol car? Even if Lindsey did not make the claim at this time or his excited and potentially incoherent statement was not registered by Pelissetti there would still seem to be little reason to expect that the killer heard their sirens and ducked into the shadows this close to the scene.

Would they have left the sirens wailing at this hour in this ritzy neighbourhood or is it more likely that they turned off the engine? Would there have been value in leaving the patrol car at the scene? O really don't know. If Pelissetti's partner was the driver and pocketed the car keys after their arrival, I wonder if his decision to investigate on foot could have been a matter of the car keys not being available.

With the timelines not adding up and overwhelming evidence that the WMA spotted on Jackson was the killer I think there is perhaps good reason to question Lindsey's alleged report of when Zodiac turned onto Jackson. If we dismiss the relaxed walking pace of the Zodiac implied by Lindsey's sighting would that make the Pelissetti and Fouke timelines a better match or would it still be all screwy?

Richard

4/6/2018 11:10:34 am

This is a really good point. When Pelissetti first arrived his obligation is obviously towards securing the scene, along with escorting the children from any danger. But equally an obligation to the public in the near vicinity. My guess, is that if you asked Pelissetti later that night or today on whether the kids pointed Zodiac out to him, he would probably say he couldn't recollect this. Possibly he was talking over them at this point, correctly ushering them away from any potential danger. Had he registered what they were saying, he could easily have left Frank Peda in charge and rather than drive in the direction the suspect was last seen going, gambled on heading along Washington and up Maple in order to cut off the suspect, but only if he was aware of the direction the suspect was going, which clearly he wasn't, as he said in the 2007 documentary "got to the top of Cherry and had a decision to make-go left or right". This indicates clearly he wasn't sure which direction the suspect had headed and hadn't taken in what the Robbins kid said. Had he listened to Lindsey, he wouldn't have had to ask himself the question. If he had headed up Cherry in his vehicle rather than on foot he could have become a bigger target- effectively trapped in a vehicle advertising "the police are coming". He couldn't have seen the suspect turn right on Jackson- had he, he could of cut him off by driving along Washington and up Maple as stated earlier. In hindsight we know the route Zodiac took, but on the night in question Pelissetti had no idea if the suspect was lying in wait or had doubled back, and what sort of firearm he had. Driving after the suspect with a recognizable police vehicle, effectively trapped within the vehicle and a fairly large target, I believe Armond Pelissetti made the correct choice. The option he chose is the option I would have chosen. With hindsight, everything is so much easier.

Drew

4/6/2018 11:40:50 am

I agree it is very easy to second guess police decisions fifty years in the future and I don't think Pelissetti reacted illogically.

"If he had headed up Cherry in his vehicle rather than on foot he could have become a bigger target- effectively trapped in a vehicle advertising "the police are coming"."

I think this is a fair assessment of the decision, Richard. I would personally have felt safer in a car but then again I would make a terrible and cowardly policeman! Your point about having a keener awareness of the immediate surroundings while on foot is well taken. There was a chance that the killer was nearby and securing the immediate area would be paramount.

Perhaps we are no closer to making the timelines match but I do feel that if Lindsey did make the claim at the scene that it is pretty clear that Pelissetti felt the priority was to make sure, to his own observations, that the killer was not near by. Thanks Richard

Richard

4/6/2018 11:51:12 am

The second Robbins statement was years later, and they were recollecting an event when they were mere children. Their description of some of the events were clearly correct. Trying to lever Stine into an upright position from the driver side door explains perfectly the right-hand finger impressions on the driver side panel, but their observations of seeing Zodiac with Stine's head in his lap, I can say with confidence is highly unlikely. Paul Stine was bleeding copiously from his head wound-so the last thing you would do is rest his head on your lap when your only escape plan is by foot. Because the timeline makes no sense whatsoever, either there are two suspects, or the most likely answer, is that this part of the story about pointing out Zodiac to Pelissetti is embellishment on their part. Many people have questioned Pelissetti and Fouke's account endlessly, and rightly, but the teenagers description and drawing, plus this later account always gets a free pass, even from me. If Donald Fouke drove from Washington/Presidio Avenue to Jackson/Maple at 35-40 mph, he gets there in one minute. This being the case, the account of Lindsey is false. This to me is the most likely answer. In many eyewitness accounts years later, some is still factual, but often extra bits are added or embellished. James Owen closed up the vehicles at LHR and added a gunshot, Donald Fouke brought 3712 Jackson Street into the equation, completely negating his November 12th memorandum, Nancy Slover recognized Richard Gaikowski as the likely voice decades after hearing a 20 second phone call, of which she didn't understand the importance of at the time. This drives to my point earlier, that certain individuals in the Zodiac story get a free pass. Nancy Slover 100% remembered the wording over the phone despite talking over the killer- he was talking monotone as if reading from a script, and "goodbye" was so evil and menacing. This is probably hindsight knowing all that has transpired since. This isn't denigrating the eyewitnesses and dispatcher, but this is the reality of hindsight recollection-it takes on a life of its own. Consider this Drew- many people say that the reason serial killers are hard to capture because they look just like me or you, or you neighbour. They don't stand out in a crowd. Yet, when they are captured and you stare into their eyes, they are just black and soulless, there is nothing behind them-they personify evil. Funny really, before they were caught they just looked like me and you. This again is embellishment after the fact-trying to build up something into what it isn't. The teenagers have avoided publicity throughout the years, so couldn't be accused of capitalizing off the back of Zodiac, but are as vulnerable as we all are, in exaggeration and embellishment. That is not to say these individuals are not nice people, but they are human, and with that comes imperfection.

Ray Jenkins

4/6/2018 04:13:20 pm

I find the whole Stine thing interesting because the Zodiac had often threatened to go on a killing rampage picking off kiddies... but at the Stine scene he no doubt knew he had an audience as he would have been able to see the kids peering out of the windows. Well here was his chance. Bu he never shot at them. It was almost as if... he took no notice of them. Did it give him pleasure to have young people witness his brutality? Did he like the fact that there were witnesses who could talk about his "deed" to the police and the press?

Tom

4/7/2018 05:52:36 am

There is no way he could see inside a house while he was in the cab. The teenagers knew they weren’t being seen.

Ray Jenkins

4/7/2018 04:06:34 pm

Of course cabs do not have windows and he was blinded by the street lights when he got out of the cab. He was deaf too apparently! LOL! Do any of you actually live in the REAL world?

Shawn

4/6/2018 05:47:14 pm

Zodiac staying at the crime scene for a few minutes and being seen by the kids in affluent Presidio Heights enabled police the best chance to catch him.

The cops probably threw everything they had at this attack location (showing up quickly), bringing in dogs, extra police and fire trucks.

This was the very affluent Presidio Heights so the police probably did go the extra mile to catch the killer. Unlike if this murder would have happen in a poorer part of town.

Rubislaw 32 link

4/6/2018 06:28:14 pm

That's a very interesting point,Shawn,on whether the police may have tried harder,for the ''affluent''.

It is all too apparent that Zodiac had decided to carry out this attack,in one if the wealthier parts of town.Among those that make the largest contributions,in local taxation.''Those'' who tend to expect good public services,for their contributions [?].

There was probably a number of reasons for Zodiac settling on this location.What I would proffer is that Zodiac planned this attack,starting at the ''end game'',and working backwards.

In effect,his getaway was No.1 priority,and easy access to the Golden Gate bridge,was his first consideration.

So,that would immediately influence the general area,in which he would seek to claim a victim.

Tom

4/7/2018 05:48:11 am

They did that in order to search the Presidio, not because of the afluent neighborhood.

Ray Jenkins

4/7/2018 04:10:08 pm

Well I agree with you on this salient point Tom. Keep it simple, or before long we find ourselves venturing into elaborate conspiracy theories involving JFK and Marilyn Monro. LOL!

Ray Jenkins

4/8/2018 09:57:54 pm

Tom, I was not having a joke at your expense here. The conspiracy theory jibe was directed at others who sometimes post on these pages, not you. Wow, I really thought that was bleeding obvious. Have you never heard of "in jokes"? Do I really have to explain everything? Next time I will have to add some winks to make it clearer. ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)

Lemonboy

4/6/2018 05:50:48 pm

Has it ever been clarified how exactly Xenophon Anthony was placed by the witness at the scene? As in was it just a case of misidentification? Meaning Zodiac at least had a similar appearance to Anthony. Or was Anthony walking around the area and that’s why the 8 year old placed him at the scene. If Anthony was outside as well at around the time of the shooting(which I doubt)then the area would’ve been pretty busy for no one to not have seen anything suspicious. Sorry if this has been clarified before

Judith

4/7/2018 09:05:21 pm

So I don't know if this helps, but Peter owned a gun silencer. I saw it, it screwed into the barrel of the gun that had the clip. If I understand correctly the older teenage boy went downstairs into a darkened area of the house and watched the Zodiac Killer from the lower level. I've often wondered what Stein's had was doing in Zodiac's lap, and when did the murder occur? Was this perhaps some kind of a homosexual encounter that required for Stein then to be murdered? All victims acting out in inappropriate sexual behavior.

Tom

4/8/2018 06:30:15 am

This guy Ray must have me confused with someone else. I have never interjected a political bias in to any post. I have never constructed a conspiracy theory, let alone based one on some preconceived point of view. I am just trying to learn everything I can and once in a while post a "Real World" view.

Shawn

4/8/2018 08:42:52 am

He might think you are Tom Voigt who runs ZodiacKiller.com

Rubislaw 32 link

4/8/2018 11:30:46 am

In fairness to Ray,Tom....he has asked of us all :

'' Do any of you actually live in the real world ? ''

It might be his medication,doing the talking [?].....and only serves up pure ''waffle'',over confusion on the difference between ''Maple'' and ''Cherry''.

Ray Jenkins

4/8/2018 09:52:03 pm

Tom, you are getting the threads mixed up. I did not suggest that you had invented a conspiracy theory. Where did you get that idea from? Check the timelines above and you will see this is true. Or are you just trying to invent a way to make me look stupid because I disagreed with you?

Shawn, no I do not think Tom is Tom Voigt. Alex Smith does apparently, so you'll have to talk to him about that. Good luck to you getting a reasoned and rational response there!!! lol!

Rubislaw, the great intellectual and pompous monolith who is known to spit the dummy and get very personal whenever anybody dares to find fault with his "infallible" cipher solutions. He holds grudges that are as long as he is boring. Ironic too that he uses the word "waffle".

Maple and Cherry? I have no idea what our illustrious pompous one is talking about? Both maple syrup and cherries are very good to eat. Perhaps he is suggesting we all eat some cherries on waffles covered in maple syrup. Sounds yummy! I suspect I have made some mistake in my writings in the past and he has picked up on it and not bothered to correct me. I guess you like to snicker away at other's mistakes, then throw them back at them during such a time as this. I have found numerous mistakes in some of the things you have written, but why bother correcting you. You evidently think you know it all anyway, so what would be the point? Especially considering you have frequently claimed to have the uncanny ability to understand the Zodiac's mind and know what he was thinking. Hmmmm. I think you will find this is a psychological delusion my friend. So who, I ask, should be on meds? Or who is not taking their meds?

Howard Miller

4/8/2018 10:28:30 pm

I am a good friend of Ray's and have known him for many years. We share the same network, so I sometimes chime in with ideas, mostly in support of Ray, who seems to be copping the wrong end of the pineapple lately due to his honest comments on conspiracy theories.

I've been following the posts with interest for a while now. There are others on our network too who sometimes chime in for a laugh. As we are all based in Australia, we sometimes laugh at the misunderstandings other nationalities have with our wordings and phrasings. Ray, who is about as Australian as you can get, has been misunderstood by American posters on so many occasions we have lost count, and English posters too just "don't get him" at times, even though he is intelligent and quite the intellectual.

They just don't seem to get our sense of laconic humour, the dry wit, or our cynicism. They mistake such things as a personal attack and some people can get really nasty about it and say things like "have you been taking your meds" and "when did you escape from the asylum". Can you blame Ray for getting cranky about this and retaliating? Personally I cannot.

This whole asylum and med things is funny because from what I've read on these pages, there seem to be quite a few people who are off their meds or have potentially escaped from the asylum. LOL!

Anyway, because other posters don't "get it" Ray tends to get really annoyed and frustrated.

I must admit I agree with Ray's estimation of some other posters on these pages.

Ironically, was it not the Great One with the "voice of God" who once penned the words "a dullard's response"? This and the idea that the Zodiac would likely use the word "lavatory" had our whole office in stitches. A lavatory wall no less, on which some immortal words were written.

We wonder if Rubislaw is really serious about his cipher "solutions", or if his whole intention is to keep us all amused?

No offense, but only a terribly English person would think up such words and phrases, which tends to suggest you must think the Zodiac was one too. If you understand the Zodiac's mind so well, I guess we can only conclude that the Zodiac must have been a Pom. Haha! I kind of think Bryan Hartnell would have recognized a pommy accent, but one never knows how ignorant of the world some Americans were back in those days. Many Americans back then would have been unable to find Australia on a map if you asked them to. Many of us still laugh at the way Mad Max had to be dubbed with American accents when the movie was released over there. An accent was like a foreign language, yet oddly Australians could understand everything that Americans were saying. Clearly there are still great language gaps, even in the written word, and the translation is being lost on numerous occasions.

Rubislaw 32 link

4/9/2018 04:47:04 am

Well Ray and Howard,the proof is in the pudding,with you two.

As Tom has rightly complained,it's all preconceived notions,about others,for you.

Wasteful and persistent insults.....simply trampling on other's views....followed by a whole discourse on empty justifcation,to cover for your actual lack of width,humility and soul.

You don't consider the good of this site,but as a vehicle to ''embroider'' your fatuous comments,to make it appear that you have engaged in constructive debate with others.

You haven't....and you haven't fooled others that you have debated.

Just a couple of bullies,that have no where else to post...because no other sites would entertain your transparency.

Richard

4/9/2018 05:23:22 am

What I would suggest from here on in, is let's draw a line in the sand and move on. If anybody has a problem with somebody else, whether it be their claims, ideas, or inability to accept constructive criticism, I suggest they no longer converse with that individual. Otherwise we can have this back and forth ad infinitum. I welcome all Zodiac related comments on this site whether I agree or disagree.
Sometimes, if the comment or topic is of no interest to me I will let others discuss it. I try not to rule the site by banning people left, right and centre, because you get accused of moderating away comments or opinions you don't like, which is not what I stand for. This tit-for-tat could continue forever, so my suggestion is somebody has to use restraint and move on. The last thing I want is to upset anyone, as I value healthy and constructive debate, but do not want a comments section turning into a slanging match. This is the reason I abandoned my Facebook site. I respect all contributors to this website whether I agree or not, but if the sniping back and forth continues much longer comments will be closed for good.
Yours respectfully, Richard.

Ray Jenkins

4/9/2018 05:46:31 am

I agree. It's gone past being stupid and I'm actually getting worried that our old mate Rubislaw might burst his boiler. :-)
Cipher solutions, suspects, decades long stalking conspiracies, and elaborate CIA conspiracy theories. I've said all I need to say about them. Expect nothing from me but silence if anyone in future tries to self-promote them.
It is only old Zodiac stuff and none of us are ever likely to solve the case by tossing ideas around, plus only a few people actually read these blogs, so it is really not worth getting all hot and bothered about.
Cheers
Ray

Howard Miller

4/9/2018 06:10:45 am

Ditto! I'm finding it interesting that I am regarded as a bully. Man, I should get all offended about this and start ranting and raving and calling people nasty names. But what would be the point? I've only posted on these pages like 3 times at a guess and my comments were all fairly tame. So how anyone could jump to the conclusion that I am a bully is just another case of the bad logic that Ray has been talking about.

I guess this is what it feels like to be tarred and feathered by association? Funny thing is Ray is not the person that some have come to paint him as. He is actually a really nice guy, extremely generous of his time, and always expresses his opinions openly and honestly. He is one of the most honest and amicable person I have ever known. He thinks deeply about things and wears his heart on his sleeve. I would tend to think if he has hurt anyone's feelings he is probably just trying to impart some simple home truths that the recipients are too proud or arrogant or reluctant to consider. As Ray has frequently said, an attack on an idea or issue is frequently mistaken as an attack on the person. I see this all the time on Facebook and YouTube and many, many forums. It is sad that so many posters do not seem to understand the difference and begin to strike back as soon as they detect a disagreement with their personal views.

One wonders how can anyone debate things meaningfully when there is the constant fear that one may cause offense? Maybe everyone should just agree with one another all the time, or reply with cautiously worded, cryptic, mundane comments, or just stay silent?

Richard

4/9/2018 07:24:31 am

I agree Howard, if somebody disagrees with something I say or write, I certainly don't mind. Constructive criticism is the key. Counter arguments to any proposed idea is what I prefer, rather than what you often see on certain social media sites, where the response to certain articles is the word "pathetic", "ridiculous" or statements such as "these people ought to leave the Zodiac scene." In other words, no constructive counter argument, just a sense of superiority without offering anything substantive in return.

Rubislaw 32 link

4/9/2018 09:32:17 am

Lovely stuff,Richard,and some much needed diplomacy.

Its your site and your rules....and if we can just stick with ''Unidentified Zodiac'',I am sure it will be a happier place.

I am sure that Ray is a decent man....but this constant ''verbal mugging'' of those in particular,who are either new or,in the process of,and desiring to learn more.....is simply shameful.

Everyone has something to offer,and should not feel intimidated,in making constructive suggestions.

Thanks,and appreciate your information....and superb graphics.

Richard

4/9/2018 11:30:26 am

Cheers Rubislaw, Ray and Howard, let's all move on and try and crack this case before the 22nd century.

Tom

4/10/2018 05:33:17 am

I am all for that. I am a newbie, and it is your sensible approach that attracted me to this site. I was in the Bay area during Z’s reign of terror and am running out of years.

Richard

4/10/2018 05:51:06 am

Did you ever frequent the El Rey Theatre (Cine 21) at 908-910 on Tennessee Street Tom. Being close to where I believe Zodiac lived it has some relevance. What was the closest cinema or drive-in to the Springs and Tuolumne payphone. Cheers, Richard.

Ray Jenkins

4/10/2018 02:08:48 pm

Yes Tom, I have absolute faith in the abilities of continued online discussion by people like yourself and others to crack the case wide open and reveal the true identity of the killer! And no, I am definitely not being cynical or sarcastic here, even though it can be difficult to tell what others really mean in online posts on occasion. Best of luck! :-)

Ray Jenkins

4/10/2018 02:33:32 pm

"Everyone has something to offer,and should not feel intimidated,in making constructive suggestions."

Even after they have been told they are "off their meds" and "should go back to the asylum"?

Yeah, right! That is rather "rich".

One truly hopes that one may practice what one preaches if anyone dares to disagree honestly with your cipher solutions again in future, or will they be forever "damned" to the asylum and expect an intense "verbal mugging" (?) (?) (?)

It seems to me this whole spat started with Rubislaw's inability to accept honest criticism. He responded, not critically and analytically, but by launching into a highly subjective and personal attack.

I apologize for making said honest observation. But will the Almighty Cipher solver, hallowed be his name, ever stoop to apologize in return (?) Or will he simply use this post as an excuse to form another "snipe" all because his feelings got hurt when someone told him the honest truth about his highly imaginative cipher "non-solution"? Or is this not deemed a "constructive" suggestion (?) in the books of the Almighty and Infinitely Wise and All Knowledgeable One who calls Himself Rubislaw?

One wonders (?) ... and hopes... while not holding one's breath! In any case the reply is already known.

It is so easy to say "let's all move on" when you were, in effect, the chief instigator of the ill feelings, and clearly you still bear a grudge as it is implicit in your wording above that you are being disingenuous.

You may well forget that I was a Newbie myself to these pages at the time I criticized your cipher solutions for their extreme subjectivity and lack of scientific method. Yet you have the gall to make pronouncements about the "shameful" act of verbally mugging those who are new and in the process of learning more.

Practice what you preach!

Howard Miller

4/10/2018 02:42:25 pm

That's not going to happen Ray.

He is far too proud and self-righteous. If there is an apology it will come with the usual cynically sugar-coated venom and bile as always, so will not be a genuine apology.

Karen C

4/9/2018 02:09:48 pm

My apologies for "bully boy" Howard and the "verbal mugger" Ray (!)

Clearly they are both off their meds (?)

Well at least they can take a joke... unlike some frequent correspondents (!) It would seem (?)

Howard is only partly correct in his rather superficial and hackneyed analysis.

The truly great thing about cryptic (?) or, some might say, "obscure" comments (as it were) is this...

... they are fundamentally "safe" (?)

Moreover they cover any "deficiencies" (?) in the "pretence" of... one's intellectual reasoning (?)

Likewise, the addition of lots of unnecessary spaces also apparently

helps (?) ... or one hopes. (!) because it is crucial that others may be led to believe our purposeful indiscretions were never intended (!)

They are of equal importance to the frequent use of PARENTHESIS.

Perchance to say, padding is critically "important" as it directs attention to where it is most needed (?)

So one can say much... without really having contributed "anything" at all. (?) (?) (?)

and waste a lot of space in so doing.

Have a nice day everybody! :-)

THE TIMELINE OF ARMOND PELISSETTI

Leave a Reply.

CATEGORIES