Zodiackillersite.com

entropy wrote:

Welsh Chappie wrote:

entropy wrote:I tend to believe that ALL of the eyewitnesses did their best to describe what they saw and I tend to think that we are doing a bit too much speculation to interpret what they really saw. I agree that Hartnell comes across as a very reliable, observant witness. Some of his observations might be wrong but he described what he saw to the best of his ability. I'm sure the other LB witnesses did as well but the fact is that we don't know if they are actually eyewitnesses to anything here.

In looking at the description of the Lake Berryessa costume:

http://zodiackiller.com/SFPDNapa.html

...and the Stine composite sketches:

http://zodiackiller.com/Composite2.html

...it's hard for me to reconcile Hartnell's description of seeing "combed", "greasy" hair through the mask's eyeholes and Shepard's alleged description that the hair "hung down across his forehead" with the Stine witnesses' description.

Are their observations both wrong or misinterpreted? Is it a disguise or alteration of hairstyle? Or is it a indication that Zodiac may have looked different at that particular time? If so, why the change of look two weeks later?

Chappie makes a good point that the physical descriptions are really all over the map if they are descriptions of the same man. Is that a reasonable range of eyewitness error or an indication that they aren't describing the same person?

I wasn't saying, nor implying, that any other witness did less than their best, I was saying that if I could pick one to spend an hour chatting with, it would have to be Bryan. Even from a Courts perspective, I would think he'd be the most credible and believable witness to put on the stand if they had discovered Z's identity. And it isn't true or accurate to suggest that all witnesses did their best to describe as accurate as possible what and/or who they had seen. Don Fouke? How did he describe the suspect he had encountered in the days after the incident? He didn't. He said nothing at all of even having a close encounter of the Zodiac Kind. It wasn't until Z himself decided to have a bit of fun and tell the chronicle to print his letter in which he decides to take the decision out of Don's hands and forces him into a corner whereupon he emerges with a Memo confirming the author was correct.

I know, Chappie, and points well taken. It's a damn shame that the best eyewitness was the one who encountered Zodiac in costume. Figures... It may be fair to criticize Fouke for not submitting an official report of his encounter until Zodiac forced his hand but I don't think this necessarily detracts from his observations. It would have been better to get them on paper right away but the observations are still detailed and, I presume, accurate to the best of his ability.

No I totally agree. I shouldn't really be so quick to judge Don Fouke for not coming forward with this info because it is just as likely, if not even more so, that Don's said nothing of it publically not because he wanted to, but because his bosses ordered him not to in order to protect the integrity and question of the Departments competence. Don says he told Pellissetti about his sighting either the very next day, or a day or two after the incident (can't remember which exact day he said now off top of my head). AP confirms this saying "He never mentioned anything to me that day that he had seen anybody or had stopped someone. However, in subsequent conversations with him he mentioned that he had seen someone..." So if he was telling other officers, I can only assume the higher ups knew.

My thought is that Zodiac essentially confirmed that Fouke's observations were relevant with his 11/9/69 letter. I totally agree that a report should have been filed at the time of the incident but I tend to give Fouke the benefit of the doubt that he was genuinely unsure if the guy he encountered was Zodiac. The 10/13/69 letter refers to him hiding out "in the park" but he doesn't make mention of any encounter with police. I don't think there is any doubt that the 11/9/69 letter is what necessitated an official report from Fouke and I imagine it was a tad embarrassing for him, which seemed to be Zodiac's motivation in writing about the encounter and demanding publication.

Based on the formal costume Zodiac wore at the Lake Berryessa murder, we can assume he made an effort to disguise himself deliberately and in a
more sophisticated way as time went on. And in what ways can someone disguise himself? Can you make yourself look older? yes, Younger? more difficult.
Can a thinner person make himself appear larger? yes A fat man looking thin? more difficult. Can you add eye glasses you normally don't wear? How about hair?
easily changed from combed forward, to a pompadore, to cutting, to coloring, adding greasy kid stuff or vaseoline. Can you alter the appearance of your height
with a box shaped head dress? well how clever he was...yes he put much deliberate thought into the costume, it was part of the fun, the fantasy, the preparation.

entropy wrote:My thought is that Zodiac essentially confirmed that Fouke's observations were relevant with his 11/9/69 letter. I totally agree that a report should have been filed at the time of the incident but I tend to give Fouke the benefit of the doubt that he was genuinely unsure if the guy he encountered was Zodiac. The 10/13/69 letter refers to him hiding out "in the park" but he doesn't make mention of any encounter with police. I don't think there is any doubt that the 11/9/69 letter is what necessitated an official report from Fouke and I imagine it was a tad embarrassing for him, which seemed to be Zodiac's motivation in writing about the encounter and demanding publication.

Well I agree about giving Fouke the benefit of the doubt, but for a different reason. I give him the benefit of the doubt for not coming forward with his sighting because they were already on the ropes so to speak after failing to apprehend him after they got to the scene seconds after he had left it and then cordoned off the park with a huge search effort that proved fruitless. The last thing the higher ups needed was the public being told 'Oh by the way, two of our officers drove past a man matching the teen witness description and walking away from the direction of the scene itself as they were responding to it.'

"Give Fouke the benefit of the doubt that he was genuinely unsure if the guy he encountered was Zodiac."

Well, no (lol). Whether that was the cab drivers shooter (no one had any idea at this point that Zodiac was involved) or not isn't really the point. He was in the immediate area and could have been a crucial witness. I think that after they realised Don's description of the white male matched that of the cab driver suspect as given by the teens, they decided not to release it because they knew there was then a real possibility that the white male seen by Don and Eric was the offender.

Welsh Chappie wrote:It was never officially stated or acknowledged by Fouke and/or the SFPD until November 11, and the incident happened on October 11.... etc.

WC - you said "Don Fouke? How did he describe the suspect he had encountered in the days after the incident? He didn't."
The fact that the park was searched on the night of the Stine murder might indicate that Fouke at the scene prompted that action.
And the report? Fouke contributed to the composite, so he was certainly talking about his view of the subject right after the event. Nuh?
Fouke's denied speaking to a suspect, then, since, and now. He still does. FIne by me.
Loves a good lie, that Zodiac fella. Likes to embarrass the po-lice. Loves it.

smithy wrote:

Welsh Chappie wrote:Loves a good lie, that Zodiac fella. Likes to embarrass the po-lice. Loves it.

Good is right. Not just a run-of-the-mill lies that can be solidly dismissed. They hang around and pester. More like misinformation or propaganda.

onewhoknows wrote:Based on the formal costume Zodiac wore at the Lake Berryessa murder, we can assume he made an effort to disguise himself deliberately and in a more sophisticated way as time went on. And in what ways can someone disguise himself? Can you make yourself look older? yes, Younger? more difficult.

Can a thinner person make himself appear larger? yes A fat man looking thin? more difficult. Can you add eye glasses you normally don't wear? How about hair?
easily changed from combed forward, to a pompadore, to cutting, to coloring, adding greasy kid stuff or vaseoline. Can you alter the appearance of your height with a box shaped head dress? well how clever he was...yes he put much deliberate thought into the costume, it was part of the fun, the fantasy, the preparation.

I agree Judith. He was having 'fun' where he could take it at any stage and on every level. The crimes, the letters, the disguises. He can't even keep them separate. He couldn't contain himself and eventually had to discuss the 'cleverness' of the disguise(s) element in the bus bomb letter.

smithy wrote:

Welsh Chappie wrote:It was never officially stated or acknowledged by Fouke and/or the SFPD until November 11, and the incident happened on October 11.... etc.

WC - you said "Don Fouke? How did he describe the suspect he had encountered in the days after the incident? He didn't."
The fact that the park was searched on the night of the Stine murder might indicate that Fouke at the scene prompted that action.
And the report? Fouke contributed to the composite, so he was certainly talking about his view of the subject right after the event. Nuh?
Fouke's denied speaking to a suspect, then, since, and now. He still does. FIne by me.
Loves a good lie, that Zodiac fella. Likes to embarrass the po-lice. Loves it.

Yes he did, I am not disputing Fouke was responsible for them heading for Julius Kahn, but that is the natural assumption to make isn't it? Fouke seems to imply it was by saying "We turned around to get to the Presidio and our reasoning, well my reasoning on that, was because turning down Maple would lead directly through the Presidio wall and into Julius Kahn Playground which had a lot of foliage." That, he says, was his specific reason for going there. Not once does he say he radioed other units to respond to the area because he had seen a suspect heading in that direction. He does say that when Armond told him on Cherry St that the suspect wasn't a Black Male, but was actually White, Don claims he told Armond "oh, that was the suspect" to which Armond immediately responds "Uhh, He did not mentioned to me that he had seen anybody at that point, or had stopped anybody."

"Fouke's denied speaking to a suspect, then, since, and now. He still does. FIne by me." That's your opinion Smithy and I respect your right to have and voice it. And as you correctly say, 'loved a good lie, that Zodiac Fella". But one person who doesn't love a good ol' lie and loves this game of who saw who and said what and where, is Diana Zelms, Eric's Widow. She has no reason to lie about anything. In fact, quite the contrary.

Officer Eric Zelms widow statement:

"Thankfully, during the week of August 15, 2005, I was able to have an interview with Zelms' widow, Diana. The following will be a brief summary of the graciously given information.


Diana said that Eric closely followed the Stine murder on television. He told her that when he and Fouke saw a WMA they quickly decided to question him. He said that they spoke to this man "face to face!" The man was polite, calm and answered all of their questions. There was nothing suspicious about him. They then quickly left to continue their search for a BMA as had been broadcast in the APB.


Officer Zelms confessed to his wife that when they realized the man they had talked to was the Zodiac they absolutely did not know what to say or do. They understood what the full ramifications would be if it became known that San Francisco police officers had confronted but failed to capture the Zodiac Killer! She was told, in all confidence, that Fouke made the final decision to say they only drove by a WMA and he was not stopped because they were looking for a BMA.


It would seem that Fouke knew that he and Zelms had spoken to Zodiac "face to face" and he wanted to protect a rookie officer. It would be quite unthinkable that the senior officer did not know if his partner had seen the WMA as Fouke wrote in his memo and has said in some interviews. Zelms admitted to his wife in private that he cooperated with Fouke because he didn't want to get a negative report and possibly lose his job. In light of the heavy criticism from some quarters about the failure of the SFPD to capture the Zodiac, if what had happened were to get out the effects would have been devastating."

Now Mr Smith you may choose to believe Don if you wish when it cannot be disputed that he has lied once about what he saw that night (first the suspect was last seen 'going north on Maple' and then years later he was walking up steps toward a house) but I myself choose to believe Diana and unless you can tell me you know of a good reason for Diana to make up lies about her deceased young husband I think i'll continue to believe her.

The comment of "He said that they spoke to this man "face to face!" is very interesting for several reasons.

1. Zodiac stated in his letter "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"

2. Fouke "I remember seeing his eyes, I couldn't tell you what colour they were, it was dark enough that his eyes were concealed." Then a few sentences later: "(Zodiac was) stumbling along, like a semi-limp may have come up in my mind because he was putting his head down when he spotted the police and then turned into an entrance way of a house." (Pic below shows the position of Fouke and White Male Suspect at time of encounter)



So Fouke see's the mans eyes from that distance while, by his own admission, the man is looking down at the ground before turning into a house? Umm, OK!

3. Fouke was asked how fast he was driving, and how long it was from the time of first spotting him to passing him? Fouke said "Well, until I saw him... Probably about 35 to 40 MPH on a 25 MPH street. Slowed down as we passed him, I don't know, still rolling, saw that it was a White Male... Step on the gas! 5, 10 maybe 15 seconds tops from first spotting him to passing him." And in this 5 to 15 seconds Fouke manages to recall the following General Description in his memorandum:

"White, 35 - 45. Approx. 5' 10. 180 - 200lbs. Medium to Heavy Build. Barrel Chested. Medium Complexion. Light coloured hair possibly greying at the rear."

Then Don starts being very specific....

"White Male. Light coloured hair possibly greying at the rear. Dressed in a derby, or three quarter waist length jacket with elastic at the waist and on the cuffs and a regular flap down collar. He had a crew cut and was wearing Rust coloured pleated trousers unusual for the time. He had on engineering type boots, low cut shoe, tan in colour."
Don can tell us about some bit of elastic on a cuff, his slightly greying hair ,and what colour his shoes were from that a 10 second sighting at night at a distance of 75 yards?

Awesome graphic, WC. My first thought is that I fully believe that Zodiac was inclined to lie OR tell the truth if it would serve his agenda of embarrassing the blue pigs. Diane Zelms' reported confirmation of Zodiac's side of the story does make me wonder if this is one of those times that the truth was more effective.

Second thought is that I still find it intriguing that Zodiac just happened to be changing his course of direction as he walked down Jackson St. just as he saw Fouke and Zelms driving toward him. He INSISTS that he was exiting stage left just as Fouke and Zelms approached him, perhaps anticipating a confrontation.

"Print that! I disappeared into the park never to be seen again! Did I mention how important it is to print that?"

Red herring?

WC - that "Officer Eric Zelms widow statement" is hearsay - it's not a first hand statement (which it purports to be), nope.
A statement "graciously given" eh? Baloney. Why continually choose to believe "the bits that we like", hearsay and otherwise, which fit in with the idea of Graysmith's evil murdering superman "The Zodiac"? Gee.

Do I think Eric Zelms widow would lie about Eric's actions? Wellll....
But that's not her speaking. That's some guy who loves the legend.
Do I believe widows are capable of lies, generally? Yes indeed.
Do I believe that the widow of a dead policeman who was killed by having his service revolver taken away from him and being shot with it, ignominiously, capable of giving him a bigger role in a semi-famous incident, after his death? Well actually I do. But then I am a heartless cynic. Poor me. IF she made that statement - which I doubt - then yes, I'm still quite able to believe it's not quite 100% "truthful". Perhaps she might like it to be.

Say - the two of them are in a patrol car looking for a BMA - but both "speak to "The Zodiac" Face To Face". That doesn't sound fishy to you? I think it's as fishy as a guy spattered with blood out walking his dog.

Anyway, yes, I'll stick with my opinion about Fouke NOT stopping to speak to "The Zodiac" I think, thanks, since that's all any of this is. Opinion.
Oh! And my over-riding opinion, since you're evidencing so much respect(!), remains that naughty Mr "Zodiac" used to enjoy telling lies; this is just another one of them. Or as Trav said "misinformation or propaganda" - which is a nice description. How else to continue to get in the newspaper? How else to expoit the Chronicle into publishing things, than to give them ammunition to bash the SF police with, hmmmm?

Oh! Now!
Is Officer Fouke such a fantastic memory expert that he can recall that fulsome a description from a ten second glimpse of a guy who he would have NOT regarded as a suspect at the time? That seems unlikely.
Has he embellished his description, and indeed changed it over the years? Yes, that's likely.
It's true in fact, if you view the early and that later video accounts he's given, you will spot the differences I'm sure.
Is the bit he said about The Zodiac going up some steps toward (if not into) a house on Jackson (?) a capricious piece of nonsense? Yes it is.
Nobody's perfect.