Zodiackillersite.com

I am still shocked that they released info including this guy's name not knowing if he was dead. They usually do not release info about persons that are alive and you need to send them proof of death. I too think it's odd that the kid picked a guy in the military from southern CA- would like to know the circumstances sorrounding that. Still, good job Welsh getting this, it's something to work with.

Seagull wrote:The documents are digitized and the way they look for what you want is to use key words like we would use in a Google search, for instance. Likely the key words that were used to find what you requested were along the lines of "eight year old witness". The key words would have to be something that was easily recognized by the search engine. The longer and more complicated your key words are the less hits you are going to receive.

This is why you are asked to be specific when you are requesting materials. Exact word phrases or names are what the search engine looks for.

From my perspective there is a 25% chance that West was the person that the eight year old witness named because there were four names on that document. I am entitled to my view in the matter. I have complimented you on getting the material and I am sincere about that. There are many instances where people do not see the same situation the same way and they agree to disagree without taking offense. I am sorry that you see my opinion as some sort of confrontation because it is not. My opinion is just that, mine, and I would not expect anyone to agree with me 100%.

"I have complimented you on getting the material and I am sincere about that." And I replied thanking you for the compliment.

" I am entitled to my view in the matter." Of course you are, I respect everybody's right to their own views and opinions. However, I would appreciate it if before you voiced those views, namely "Are you just assuming that the Name is that of the man witnessed by the eight year old?" that you would take time to read the original post in which I state clearly that this is what I asked for specifically in my request. If you had read that part of the post, you'd have no reason or grounds to ask me am I just assuming it's the same man. I've said twice now in previous replies that i submitted a FOIA request specifically asking for the name of the suspect given by the witness to be released, therefore I am not simply using a logic of "Well theres a 1 in 4 chance it is him, 25% chance is good enough for me to assume it's him so I will make the claim that it is." I am assuming it is because that is what i specifically asked for. If I hear the chimes of my local Ice Cream van in the street and dash out and ask him for a Double Cone Ice Cream with flake, I then assume he understands that request and assume that what he serves me will be what I requested. If he handed me a poodle puppy, I would look at him a bit stupid d because I didn't ask for a poodle puppy.

If you have issue as to whether the suspect is the one named by the eight year old, then I can only advise you take that up with the FBI and make a complaint about their procedure in releasing info that is not specifically what was requested in the actual request. I have given you my reasons for stating why I state it's the suspect named by the witness, I don't know what else I can tell you on the matter.

morf13 wrote:I am still shocked that they released info including this guy's name not knowing if he was dead. They usually do not release info about persons that are alive and you need to send them proof of death. I too think it's odd that the kid picked a guy in the military from southern CA- would like to know the circumstances sorrounding that. Still, good job Welsh getting this, it's something to work with.

I know that if you request info on a person you have the name and details for, then yes, the onus is on you to supply proof of death. However, if your request is for the release of a suspect or person not known to you and is a suspect featured in a redacted document, then it is not plausible, nor possible, to be expected to supply proof of death because the very nature of the FOIA requests is to obtain his name. If you don't know who he is, how can you prove he's dead? I can only assume that there are exemptions to the need for proof of death, and one of those is requesting the release of a suspect that cannot be known to the requesting party due to their own Dpt. not making it available. I would hazard a guess that in these circumstances, the onus is on them to seek and find proof of death because it is not possible for you as the requesting party to do so due to their own redacted document.

As I said, I knew that FOIA requests for documents relating to specific people require you to prove they are deceased and therefore the Privacy Laws can be waived, so I stated in the request that due to the very nature of the request being the release of a person name and details, (because I don't know who he is and requesting they tell me), it's therefore not plausible, nor even possible, for me to supply evidence of death. I didn't think the request would be successful not because of that issue, but because he was never officially charged or named as POI/Suspect by LE, Media etc.

The irony is that getting the release of info for a man who's name and details I don't know was easy and took only one request submitted. A request for info on an individual I can supply the name of, along with his official death and burial details & online obituary, I can't seem to make any headway with. I have tried FOIA requests for, Lawrence Kane & Larry Kane, both of which they replied with 'Having searched our central records system, we found no documents, files or info responsive to your request etc etc.' So I am awaiting responses on FOIA for Lawrence Cane and Lawrence Klein. I have made clear in the requests that the subject of the request had several known aliases & DOB's. That can only be the reason for the lack of results found for him. But it is ironic that requesting details of someone that you know the name of and are able to supply proof of his demise is proving difficult, yet the release of info about someone you have no clue even to his name let alone whether he's dead or alive to provide proof of, not a problem lol.

I know how you feel, I have requested several questioned Zodiac documents that the FBI listed in their files,and they told me they couldnt find them

morf13 wrote:I am still shocked that they released info including this guy's name not knowing if he was dead. They usually do not release info about persons that are alive and you need to send them proof of death. I too think it's odd that the kid picked a guy in the military from southern CA- would like to know the circumstances sorrounding that. Still, good job Welsh getting this, it's something to work with.

Thank you. I still want to know who the eight year old was who gave the name. Being only eight in 1969 means it's likely he/she (Let's assume for the sake of this post it was a boy) is still alive as a witness who, from how it seems, saw someone that gave him reason enough to believe he may have been the murderer of the Cab Driver. Many people have told me 'It's obviously one of the three teen's who saw him at the cab'. That assumption is not correct and we know this because while the three witnesses names are redacted in the report on the incident, their ages are not and none of the three were Eight years old. Knowing who he was could answer a number of questions such as: Where were you when you saw the man? Where was the man when you saw him? What reason did you have for thinking he may possibly be involved in the incident with the Cab Driver? Did you look out of your bedroom window because your saw the reflection of police lights on your bedroom wall and see someone crouched behind a vehicle, and thought it looked like someone you knew? Did your suspicions get initiated because you thought his jacket looked stained red? Did he dash into a garden as the police officer (Pellisetti) came walking down Jackson st (as Pellisetti states he did before turning to walk back to the scene) and emerged only to be greeted by the approaching lights of Don & Eric's Police cruiser? Was it the timing of your sighting that made this man viable as a suspect? Did you see him walking past your house and then 3 or 4 minutes thereafter a flurry of squad cars dash to the area behind your house on West Pacific (Assuming for a second that the eight year old resided somewhere on Jackson)

I have always thought that Zodiac's threat that school children make nice targets was not a random and general threat at all and that it was his way of threatening a school child specifically rather than children generally.

I mean how soon in relation to the incident did the letter arrive announcing his threat? Two days after the incident, which means he would have probably wrote and sent it the day after the incident on the 12th. He seems in a rush to announce he's Zodiac, and school children make nice targets. That could be interpreted as him saying "I am not just some man who you saw that shot a cabbie, I am The Zodiac! I won't think twice about silencing school children if I have to".

Just speculation I know, but one thing that isn't speculation is some eight year old saw someone that gave him reason to suspect he was possibly involved in the incident on Oct 11. We know he saw someone, so did that someone also see him? I've wondered whether the eight year old may have lived either at 3712, or in a neighbouring house and the police car lights or sound of it slowing to an almost stand still caused him to pull the curtain aside and look out of his front room window only to see a White man wearing Horn Rimmed Specs shuffling along the pathway to his own front door, or the house next door? If that were the case, it's almost certain Zodiac would have seen the young face looking out at him through the window.

He had enough concern to alert police to who and what he had seen whatever the specific reason, it was something that he deemed significant enough for his parents to allow him to report it to police. Just like it seems at face value to be odd, even unlikely, that a Minister be suspected, the fact is, someone had reason to suspect him.

Thanks for sharing Chappie. As others mentioned it is ALWAYS good to see this type of documentation. Even if we see things differently.

As far as the SFPD report, I only see two teenagers listed. We most certainly were not privy to all of the reports which must have listed this 8 year old somewhere. I do believe this child was also at the house along with the teens. Not 100% of course.

I do see what Seagull's concerns are. Had this man been the only name listed, I think there would be no question. However, he is not. If they had no problem providing this man's name, why not show his name in the redacted location (the name the child gives) as well?

While we DO have another suspect's name (thank you), we cannot say for sure this is the person the 8 year old names.

Mr. Tolson is listed on the list of Agents to receive this document. As in Clyde Tolson?

Tahoe27 wrote:Thanks for sharing Chappie. As others mentioned it is ALWAYS good to see this type of documentation. Even if we see things differently.

As far as the SFPD report, I only see two teenagers listed. We most certainly were not privy to all of the reports which must have listed this 8 year old somewhere. I do believe this child was also at the house along with the teens. Not 100% of course.

I do see what Seagull's concerns are. Had this man been the only name listed, I think there would be no question. However, he is not. If they had no problem providing this man's name, why not show his name in the redacted location (the name the child gives) as well?

While we DO have another suspect's name (thank you), we cannot say for sure this is the person the 8 year old names.

Your Welcome T, and thank you and hello again lol. Yes that is a good point you make about the name remaining redacted on page two. I Think i'll send another FOIA request, identical to the previous one (because it was successful) only this time i will again state that I am unable to provide details relating to proof of death due to the very nature of the request being the release of Named suspects that remain redacted to the public, and therefore request that any and/or all named suspects that are now deceased and exempt from Privacy Act Law Protection be released.