Zodiackillersite.com

Well, the teen witnesses have claimed that it was they who asked for a second session with the sketch artist. The second composite was the result of this - second - session. That is what they claim. And I can't see any good reason to doubt that, frankly.

It's certainly possible that Fouke and Zelms also contributed to the composite(s). They should have. But according to Fouke they did not - he's very clear on that.

Theorizing/speculating about what could have happened

Chronologically:

Stine murder takes place. Fouke and Zelms encounter Z on Jackson St – but they don't know it's Z.

Fouke and Zelms continue with their shift, looking for the suspect, accosting various people, talking to them, etc. Some of these people may easily have been shady enough, given the time of day and the nature of the situation.

It becomes clear that Stine is a Z victim. Fouke realizes that the Jackson St guy must have been Z. But he does not talk to Zelms about this. After the night of the murder there is no interaction between Fouke and Zelms – they're not on the same page at all.

Z sends his second Stine letter, claiming that he talked to two officers that night. Zelms sees this – and jumps to the wrong conclusion: He believes Z is telling the truth, in short, and concludes that Z must have been one of the (perhaps shady, suspicious, something of the sort) people he and Fouke accosted/talked to that night.

Again, there is no interaction between Fouke and Zelms – nor any interaction between Zelms and the detectives in charge of the case. Zelms doesn't read Fouke's famous memo, he isn't involved in the Z investigation at all, he's just a rookie cop whom nobody informs about anything pertaining to that case.

So – he's mistaken. And he relates his mistaken view to his wife – in what precise terms we do not know. I don't know precisely what sort of questions Davis put to her either, but it doesn't really matter: She says her husband and Fouke talked to Z on Jackson St, because that's what she believes: Her husband told her they talked to Z – and the Z encounter took place on Jackson St. The inference is inevitable, one could say. But it could nevertheless be completely wrong.

According to Fouke and Zelms, what you wrote would have to pretty much sum it up. Odd though, aye?

Tahoe27 wrote:Odd though, aye?

The whole thing is odd. But I suspect that 99% of what we perceive as potentially dubious discrepancies is down to three factors:

1. We're looking at it from a vantage point. Half a century down the line. And we're looking at it as though it were a story which unfolded from A to Z just the way we've become accustomed to "read" it. Reality is usually at odds with the neatness of a narrative.

2. People make mistakes. People have faulty memories. People express themselves clumsily. People express themselves in a way which they believe will make them look good. People may or may not be good detectives.

3. We don't have all the reports. We don't know what they actually did - or who they actually talked to.

No deception, no conspiracy - just grim reality. That's my take on it.

( Previous quote) Pelissetti said in 'This is the Zodiac Speaking', "I spoke to officer Fouke later that evening and 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". Donald Fouke denies that he stopped anybody.

Someone is lying, three guesses as to who and the first two don't count.

My theory as to how or why the dispatcher put out a bolo on a BMA and not a WMA, is that when she asked the teen to describe the perpetrator, the teen said :Its "very dark" and hard to see. The dispatcher heard " very dark "and thought the perp was dark skinned?

In answer to the question , why didn't the officers question anyone they saw walking in the area of the crime scene? When they are in persecute of a BMA they wouldn't have the time to ask a lot of questions of a WMA.

Example, I called 911 at 3am saying a man was seen peeking in my bedroom window. The police arrived with in a couple of minutes, one of them asked me if the man was driving a blue and white car ? I said yes that is what he left in. The officer said: I past him speeding away down your street, but because I am a back up officer, I couldn't turn around and go after him I had to respond to your address asap.

There is a certain protocol that they have to abide by, I don't agree with it, but that is how they are trained.

sandy betts wrote:My theory as to how or why the dispatcher put out a bolo on a BMA and not a WMA, is that when she asked the teen to describe the perpetrator, the teen said :Its "very dark" and hard to see. The dispatcher heard " very dark "and thought the perp was dark skinned?

Could very well be. Or the caller described the perpetrator's clothes as black or dark.

I think there's a more simple explanation. The dispatcher would probably have written down the full description rather hastily whilst it was relayed to them. If you quickly write down WMA, in many people's handwriting it can easily look like NMA which would have been the annotation for a negro male adult.

In the heat of the moment and the rush to get the description of the event and perp out over the radio, the dispatcher could very easily have accidentally read their notes as NMA instead of WMA.