Zodiackillersite.com

Seagull wrote:Even if LE knew that Perez was mistaken about the glasses they still were obligated to speak with her because she also claimed that her father made her write some of the Zodiac letter. Each claim would have been considered and investigated separately.

Plus, they couldn't come out and say "we know you are lying about the glasses because we have them"(if they did in fact have them)

morf13 wrote:

Tahoe27 wrote:I was also wondering why LE would give Deborah P. two seconds of their time if they had Paul's glasses. She claimed to have them in her possession. LE investigated and discovered they were not Paul's, but continued investigating other claims made by her.

If they had his glasses, they'd know she was full of it from the get-go. It would seem...

Did they really give her 2 seconds? It was her on the steps holding a press conference. Didn't see any cops there. I forget now, did they even respond to her?

Yes. From all accounts I have read they met with her and took the glasses in as "evidence" and tested them. There are quotes from officers. For whatever it's worth.

So then one can only conclude, if that's true, SFPD not only does not have Stine's glasses, they do not know what happened to them. Ergo, because Stine needed his glasses to drive and there's no evidence he didn't or that he wore contacts, his glasses "vanished" from the scene.

Really, if what you say is accurate, and I'm not labeling you a fabulist, then there's no other reasonable interpretation, unless SFPD is totally and grossly ignorant of their own cold case.

All I know is what is in articles on the internet. Could be bs via reporters or cops, or it could be true. Like everything else with this case.

"According to accounts of the crime, Stine's body was missing his eyeglasses when he was found."
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Wom ... 162785.php

Police say no to Zodiac daughter claim

"But investigation determined the glasses didn't belong to Stine, said Kevin Jones, an inspector in the San Francisco Police Department's homicide bureau. Jones handles the Zodiac case."

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/pere ... jones.html

***

It could just be wording and/or they are holding back that info - like I said..."for what it's worth".

Laypeople have connections inside SFPD. Why don't they ever ask them about the glasses? You'd think that would be in the top five of most important questions to broach.

jroberson wrote:
Where's the documentation for Stine's watch? Is that listed somewhere?

Doesn't appear to be. The ROD lists a ring, keys or a key (his house keys, presumably), a check book and various other papers (not specified).

No watch – but he's evidently wearing one.

As for Perez, I agree that's a good point. But it's hard to say precisely what that business amounts to.

Perhaps they didn't actually test her glasses. If they do have Stine's glasses and want to keep using them to filter out crackpots and whatnot, then it makes sense to serve Perez a lie about having done a test.

If they had flat out refused to test her glasses, that might have backfired – she could have made a big song and dance about them not taking her seriously, etc.

I don't think they have his glasses, and I cannot imagine why they'd keep them. They have no forensic or evidentiary value, AFAICT.

What make & model of car was the cab?

The images we have aren't going to tell us anything about what we are looking at. I'm thinking if we have the m&m and try and find clearer interior images of the same it will at least give us a better reference point. Help us to interpret the 'shapes' we think are seeing in the images.

jroberson wrote:I don't think they have his glasses, and I cannot imagine why they'd keep them. They have no forensic or evidentiary value, AFAICT.

Me either. It doesn't really make sense even if you speculate they were doing it to assist in some way the 'perps' capture. IF the were there then they would have been treated as part of the scene objects or not (the watch for instance). It's just too convoluted to imagine that they came up with the idea to 'say' they were missing and ensure they weren't documented when for all intents and purposes this was just a cabbie robbery gone bad.

The taxicab was a 1968 Ford Custom Galaxie 500.
4-door, rear wheel drive,
Manufacturer: Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, Michigan - U.S.A.
Type: Galaxie 500 6 Series 54A 4-Door Sedan
Engine: 3929cc straight-6 Ford Big Six 240
Power: 152 bhp / 4.000 rpm
Speed: 157 km/h
Production time: 1968
Production outlet: 117,877
Curb weight: 1687 kg