Zodiackillersite.com

UKSpycatcher wrote:The San Francisco Chronicle ran a piece called Zodiac's new message on November 12th 1969 detailing the '2 cops pulled a goof' message. They had the Bus Bomb Letter on November 10th. Fouke's scratch nicely coincided on the 12th November describing him seeing a white male on Jackson Street, yet if I am correct this sighting was never mentioned in any San Francisco articles prior to this point. Extremely convenient to have the scratch detailed at the same time as the Chronicle releases Zodiac's message, otherwise would this memo ever have been released or had the encounter referenced at all.

I have questioned that before. Why reference it at all?

It comes across as this being the first time the incident was even brought up by Fouke. Surely Zelms was then questioned. Too bad we don't have a memo from him. There must be a statement from him somewhere.

This is what we have to consider: We are not privy to all of it. While we scratch our heads, the scenario might have been more clear to detectives at the time. Although one thing is clear; by Foukes statement alone when referencing the investigators: "Let them figure it out".

I would think,or at least hope, when this memo was passed along to Homicide, that Homicide would have brought in both Fouke & Zelms to get full details and a report from both of them.

Fouke, like others in this case, have changed their stories over the years for one reason or another,maybe for attention, loss of memory,who knows, but whatever Fouke first detailed, I would put more stock in. I am not familiar enough with police matters,policy,or rules to know this,but does anybody know what trouble he would have faced for filing a false report?

UKSpycatcher wrote:Then clearly explain the timeline, the missing 2 minutes + and further explain what Fouke was doing in Arguello and West Pacific Avenue, as he clearly stated in the video, if he wasn't directed there and furthermore why he wasn't heading directly to Washington and Cherry as he should have been doing.

Well, there is no official timeline here. You may be right that two minutes are missing - but it remains a matter of speculation all things said and done.

However, it's a fact - and a pretty curious one - that Fouke claims (in the late 80s interview) that he a) drove past Z and then b) proceeded (directly) to Arguello. How can this be? Well, the only explanation I can think of is that Fouke picked up Pelissetti's amended description (of the suspect) over the radio:

He rolls past Z and then, very shortly after, he picks up the amended description (either directly or via the dispatcher - this depends on what sort of radio communication the SFPD had at the time, an interesting topic in itself). He realizes a) that another patrol is already at the scene (so there's no point in him going there) and b) that the guy he just passed is the perpetrator.

That makes sense, I think. The problem, of course, is the other version - where he meets AP on Cherry and receives the updated description straight from him. That version has to be discarded as the result of a faulty memory. Which is problematic. But then again every man who had anything to do with the events that night seems to contradict himself at least once - it's seemingly how it's done.

As for the scratch, I don't see anything very mysterious there. Z had his letter published, the department made sure Fouke went on the record saying he didn't talk to anyone. Hardly suspicious in itself.

And, as Butterfield quite rightly points out, if Toschi's tale is true - well, there are no words, really. He knew perfectly well that Fouke spent time chatting face to face with Z, but he wasn't too interested in it - and thought it prudent to cover the fact up because he felt sorry for poor Don. It's impossible to believe, regardless of what one thinks about...anyone or anything.

morf13 wrote:I would think,or at least hope, when this memo was passed along to Homicide, that Homicide would have brought in both Fouke & Zelms to get full details and a report from both of them.

Fouke, like others in this case, have changed their stories over the years for one reason or another,maybe for attention, loss of memory,who knows, but whatever Fouke first detailed, I would put more stock in. I am not familiar enough with police matters,policy,or rules to know this,but does anybody know what trouble he would have faced for filing a false report?

Well the scratch from his point of view is correct, he did see a white male as he was approaching the junction of Maple/Jackson, but if you read the entirety of the scratch it says "When the right description was broadcast reporting officer informed communications that a possible suspect had been going north on Maple into the Presidio."

This scratch typed only a month after the shooting totally negates his 2007 claim of being informed of the new description by Armond Pelissetti and reinforces his 1989 claim that he received the new description via the broadcast. But what it also does is totally rubbish his claim that his last sighting was of a man walking up the stairs of 3712 Jackson Street, otherwise in the scratch it would have said " reporting officer informed communications that a possible suspect had been going into 3712 Jackson Street." I am trying to not to make this a Donald Fouke issue, as he has likely done much good in his career, but you have to admit that what it says is that the 2007 documentary is more fantasy than fact. He obviously therefore never turned directly into Cherry, did turn up Arguello, but if he had received the revised description here, what was he doing there.
My reading to make this story fit, is he saw Zodiac by the intersection of Maple and Jackson, Zodiac then turned north towards the Presidio, a little bit further along Jackson (before Cherry), he got the revised description. Suspecting the man he just saw may be Zodiac he continued past the Jackson/Cherry intersection, at this point while approaching Arguello is where Donald Fouke "informed communications that a possible suspect had been going north on Maple into the Presidio", NOT as he claimed in the 1989 documentary where he received the new description. This would be an understandable mistake. In other words he didn't receive the new revised broadcast approaching Arguello, he had received it slightly earlier, but it WAS where he "informed communications that a possible suspect had been going north on Maple into the Presidio". Then he traveled on to West Pacific Avenue.
But we know Donald Fouke's journey to Jackson/Cherry is approximately 2 minutes, by the time he reaches Arguello he "informs communications that a possible suspect had been going north on Maple into the Presidio." Armond Pelissetti then sets off and may explain why he turns east on Jackson up to the Jackson/Maple intersection, he is responding to Fouke's communication that a possible suspect had been going north on Maple into the Presidio and not as he claimed it was just a calculated guess in the 2007 documentary. He meets the man walking the dog and then backtracks to Cherry. Meanwhile Donald Fouke is returning from his search in West Pacific Avenue and the two meet somewhere at the top of Cherry. This way nobody is lying, they have just got the order of events mixed up.

I think what Fouke claims - and what he has always, effectively, claimed - is that he never actually thought the guy was headed into 3712. As soon as he realized that the guy was the killer (i.e. as soon as he received the updated description) he reasoned (as he says) that the guy had pretended to enter that property, but what he did in reality was to head for the park via the Maple entrance (the low wall).

One may ask why he didn't include the "pretended to enter 3712" detail in the scratch, but I don't see this as truly significant. He includes the basics, if you will, which is that the guy made for the park as soon as the cops were out of sight. The main point of the scratch is to get it on record that F/Z did not stop and talk to the killer.

He did actually think the guy headed into 3712 Jackson Street and you cannot actually reverse down the steps, walk along Jackson Street and turn north on Maple in 5-15 seconds tops as Fouke claimed in the 2007 documentary. It is impossible. Either Zodiac went into 3712 Jackson Street or he went north on Maple, you cannot have both.

I don't buy that. You're extrapolating some sort of timeline from Fouke's statements (which are contradictory taken as a whole) which has no objective reality.

You think Fouke is lying - fine. What's your take on all the counterpoints raised by Butterfield?

Also:

Either Zodiac went into 3712 Jackson Street or he went north on Maple, you cannot have both.

Yes you can. Depending on what is actually meant by the statements in questions. You drive past someone who appears to be entering a house. At that point you presume, if you presume anything at all, that his apparent action is the true action. Shortly after, however, you realize that the person in question is not an innocent pedestrian – but a killer on the run. You then conclude that he was not, in fact, entering said house – but only pretended to be. Once you were out of sight, he made for the park as fast as he could.

The above is essentially what Fouke “reasoned”. Is there anything glaringly wrong with it?

It's impossible? In what way? What Z needs to do in order for Fouke's reasoning to be more or less right is this: As soon as he feels it's safe to proceed, he heads for the end of Maple. That is all. Whether Fouke is mistaken in what you present as his claim (i.e. that Z went back down the stairs, down Jackson, unto Maple in less than - what - 15 seconds) is beside the point unless I'm completely missing what your point actually is.

How can you say Fouke never mentioning 3712 Jackson St until 2007 is insignificant? Changing or adding to your recollection of events denotes a faulty memory or dishonesty. Concerning the current events Fouke's scratch was very important. Years later adding a possible address Z went into? Did Toschi and Armstrong know of this? To say you know his feelings or intentions is a bit much. What we know is what he said. It's his job to state the facts and he didn't completely do that. Like Fouke said, it's the investigators job to determine where Z went.

"The above is essentially what Fouke “reasoned”. Is there anything glaringly wrong with it?"

We will agree to disagree Norse, but what Fouke reasoned is not what I am saying. In the scratch it clearly states "a suspect fitting the description of the Zodiac Killer was observed by officer Fouke walking in an easterly direction on Jackson Street and then turn north on Maple Street" . In the 2007 documentary he says "he turned into an entrance way of a house, by entrance way I mean stairs that are concrete leading up to a path, that leads to a front door, never saw him get to the top of the stairs, you want the address of that residence, 3712 Jackson Street."
He never saw Zodiac reach the top of the stairs because he was driving past him and he went out of sight, but 3712 is before the intersection where he claims in the scratch he saw Zodiac last heading north into Maple and into the Presidio. His last sighting of Zodiac therefore puts him in two places.
Zodiac may have entered a stairwell of a house, then proceeded onward to the intersection of Maple and Jackson, but Fouke never saw him reach the top of the stairs, so how can he subsequently observe Zodiac entering Maple.
Michael Butterfield is an extremely intelligent researcher and find his work on the case well thought out, but on this occasion I disagree with him. I am not constructing a timeline on statements alone, the critical part is that both Pelissetti and Fouke received the dispatch at an identical point in time and unless Donald Fouke had stopped at a restaurant or driven at 10 mph there is 100% no way heading directly to Cherry he can meet Armond Pelissetti, if he is on his outward bound journey away from the crime scene.
Either Zodiac is last seen entering a stairwell or entering Maple, what Fouke may or may not reason is superfluous. All I want is the facts.

BigMajestic wrote:How can you say Fouke never mentioning 3712 Jackson St until 2007 is insignificant?

Did I say that? You have a habit of barging in and interpreting other people's statements in a way which enables you to express your outrage. Perhaps you should spend some time reading what people actually say before you post.