Zodiackillersite.com

One final point (for now) worth bringing up in this discussion: Pelissetti's report.

Let's assume that F/Z really did pull over and talk to Zodiac. What happens next? Well, there are different versions (which is a huge part of the problem here, in general, needless to say) but at some point Fouke does mention an encounter to Pelissetti, that seems clear enough. Does Pelissetti consider this encounter important? Clearly not, as it is not mentioned in his report – at all.

If F/Z had actually called the subject over (which is what Z later claims happened) and driven off in pursuit of a phantom NMA on his directions, I find it not only unlikely but impossible that this incident would have gone unmentioned in the report.

Which leaves us with some sort of conspiracy angle: Either Fouke decides, more or less on the spot, to lie about the true nature of the incident (making Zelms his accomplice) to Pelissetti – or Pelissetti for reasons unknown decides to join in and suppress the incident when writing up his report. Does that make sense? It may make some sense if everyone knows they're dealing with Zodiac – but they don't. It's a routine murder, a cabbie mugging with a fatal outcome, nothing more. It is in that context this inexplicable conspiracy is born – not in the context of the Zodiac case.

Norse wrote:

Tahoe27 wrote:^^I guess it depends on which account you want to go by. No mention of a house on Jackson in his scratch...only the man turning onto Maple towards the park.

Fouke has explained this satisfactorily, though - at least for my money. When he received the amended description he realized that the man was attempting to fool him, i.e. pretending to enter the residence. Once it became clear to him that the guy was, in fact, the perpetrator he never consider the possibility of him actually entering said residence - it was an obvious ruse on his part, and his true intention was to escape into the park (going up Maple). There is no actual contradiction here, it's just a matter of Fouke jumping straight to the park/Maple part without mentioning the ruse part.

Still seems like something important he should have addressed...especially that night. There could have been some sort of clue left there. One never knows! With Fouke's statement when referring to the investigators--"let them figure it out"...I can't help but wonder why the animosity and apparent unwillingness to help in some respect.

Tahoe27 wrote:With Fouke's statement when referring to the investigators--"let them figure it out"...I can't help but wonder why the animosity and apparent unwillingness to help in some respect.

Could be that he was - rightfully so - annoyed that they never even talked to him. The investigators, that is.

Let's look at the know timeline in relation to this stuff:

Stine Killed 10/11
Zodiac mails Stine letter 10/13
Fouke dates his memo 11/12/69

When did they announce Z was Stine's Killer? I can't think of any good reason for Fouke to sit on this memo for a month,none at all

The only thing that makes sense is Zodiac's letter about the 2 cops. For whatever reason, the scratch/memo was addressed apparently because of that letter. I can find no other explanation.

Going back to the house on Jackson, I'm going to have to call that an incorrect remembrance. Fouke neither saw the guy enter the house, or walk away from it. He only assumed later that he walked away and did not live there. That's a pretty big bet when all you had to do was go back and knock on the front door and see if Zodiac answered, or if not him then if the owner saw the guy who was at his door step.

And we are supposed to believe that a guy who can't get his story straight remembered 40 years later the exact address that he saw for one second and didn't write down?

I still find it extraordinarily hard to believe that without "stopping" this suspect, how Fouke got THAT much detail, right down to how high the zipper was on his jacket, to the pleats on his pants, elastic cuffs, and just assuming Welsh ancestry. And this is being seen at night time...that's a lot of fine details for just "passing by" someone.

We can speculate till the cows start wearing wingwalkers about the details here. The real question is whether Fouke lied for decades about the nature of the encounter - or not.

Either he did - or he didn't. That's the core of it. All the pieces of the puzzle won't fit after so many years, that's to be expected. But the nature of the encounter is a simple thing. Either they just drove past him - or they stopped and talked to him. No room for misunderstandings or faulty memories there.

Whether Fouke did a perfect job in every sense on the night, or in the following days, or weeks - is an entirely different question.

As for his recollection of Z's appearance - who knows? Perhaps he embellished what he did remember, perhaps he added a bit of detail from Pelissetti's report. One thing he certainly could have done is to consult his notes: It was a murder, Fouke would have made some notes (as he was trained to do) - and he could have consulted these when writing up his famous memo.

Why wait? The answer is obvious. Whether it was on his own initiative or on orders from on high, what brought it about was obviously Z's letter - no mystery there. Should he have volunteered this information (to Toschi or Armstrong, perhaps, or his immediate superiors) right away, or at an earlier stage? Sure - I think he should have. That has no bearing on whether he lied about the encounter, though - none whatsoever as far as I'm concerned.

Please forgive me if this has been mentioned. What I find curious is the final sentence of the memo. Foulke says he doesn't know if Zelms saw the subject.

Once Foulke realized the subject was likely the suspect and raced back to look for him, wouldn't he and Zelms have discussed what they did/didn't remember about the guy? Or if Zelms hadn't seen him, wouldn't he ask Foulke why they were racing back to that spot?

I cannot understand how Foulke could not have known, a month later, whether his partner had spotted the subject.

Marshall wrote:
I cannot understand how Foulke could not have known, a month later, whether his partner had spotted the subject.

What he says on this subject in the Rodelli/Dean interview simply amounts to: He saw what I saw, and heard what I told Pelissetti. His wording in the memo may look odd, but it's worth bearing in mind that Zelms wasn't Fouke's regular partner. The pair of them probably didn't discuss this incident at all subsequent to the night in question. And from Fouke's POV what happened on the night was clear-cut: They drove past the guy, not knowing he was the perp, then received the updated description - then went in pursuit of the guy, figuring he had escaped into the park.

His arguably odd wording certainly does not indicate that Fouke was lying and had instructed Zelms to keep his mouth shut. What he says, in the memo, is basically: If you want to know what Zelms saw or didn't see - go talk to him.