In Fouke's own words....

[Welsh Chappie]

Just been going over a few of the old videos/documentaries regarding Zodiac and noticed something interesting....again.

Officer Don Fouke said in the Documentary 'This is the Zodiac Speaking'...

"As we approached Maple St, I noticed, on the North side of the street, a white male adult." He then gives a description of the white male. He continues "Seeing that it was a white male walking along the street in an affluent neighbourhood we didn't think it was the suspect so we proceeded to the next block which was Jackson & Cherry. Turned southbound on Cherry St, saw Armond Pelissetti, one of the officers who had responded directly to the scene. He stopped us and said he was looking for the white male that had just gone down the st. There was a conversation about the initial description, and he (Pelissetti) said 'No, he was a white male." All sound straight forward. But...

In 1989's 'Crimes of the Century - Zodiac', Officer Fouke, after encountering the white male on Jackson st, gives this account:

"Since we were looking for a Negro Male Adult we proceeded on Jackson St towards Arguello, continuing our search. As we arrived at Arguello St, the description of the suspect was changed to a White Male Adult".
Now, two obvious observations can be made here.

1) Which Street did Fouke end up at? He claims he 'Proceeded on Jackson St and arrived at Arguello st' in the 1989 documentary, which means he would have driven straight past Cherry Street, yet in 2007, he claims to have "turned southbound on Cherry Street."

2) Fouke Claims in 2007 that the first time he was made aware of the suspect description change, was when he turned onto Cherry and saw Armond Pelissetti. In 1989, he claims that "As we arrived at Arguello st the description of the suspect was changed to A White Male Adult." Now, I've said al along that Fouke must have been informed before seeing Pelissetti that the description was changed because Pelissetti had broadcast it on the police radio. And Foukes words in 1989 seem to indicate that he knew the description was amended before seeing Pelissetti!

Here are the links to the two accounts that were recorded for the two respective documentaries...

This is the Zodiac Speaking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI0jnsbZwys (Fouke's account, relevant to this thread, starts at 1:18.08 into the clip.)

Crimes of the Century: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A3kD-j25jQ (Fouke's account starts at 1 Minute into the clip and lasts exactly 1 Minute.

[Victor]

Just been going over a few of the old videos/documentaries regarding Zodiac and noticed something interesting....again.

Officer Don Fouke said in the Documentary 'This is the Zodiac Speaking'...

"As we approached Maple St, I noticed, on the North side of the street, a white male adult." He then gives a description of the white male. He continues "Seeing that it was a white male walking along the street in an affluent neighbourhood we didn't think it was the suspect so we proceeded to the next block which was Jackson & Cherry. Turned southbound on Cherry St, saw Armond Pelissetti, one of the officers who had responded directly to the scene. He stopped us and said he was looking for the white male that had just gone down the st. There was a conversation about the initial description, and he (Pelissetti) said 'No, he was a white male." All sound straight forward. But...

In 1989's 'Crimes of the Century - Zodiac', Officer Fouke, after encountering the white male on Jackson st, gives this account:

"Since we were looking for a Negro Male Adult we proceeded on Jackson St towards Arguello, continuing our search. As we arrived at Arguello St, the description of the suspect was changed to a White Male Adult".
Now, two obvious observations can be made here.

1) Which Street did Fouke end up at? He claims he 'Proceeded on Jackson St and arrived at Arguello st' in the 1989 documentary, which means he would have driven straight past Cherry Street, yet in 2007, he claims to have "turned southbound on Cherry Street."

2) Fouke Claims in 2007 that the first time he was made aware of the suspect description change, was when he turned onto Cherry and saw Armond Pelissetti. In 1989, he claims that "As we arrived at Arguello st the description of the suspect was changed to A White Male Adult." Now, I've said al along that Fouke must have been informed before seeing Pelissetti that the description was changed because Pelissetti had broadcast it on the police radio. And Foukes words in 1989 seem to indicate that he knew the description was amended before seeing Pelissetti!

Here are the links to the two accounts that were recorded for the two respective documentaries...

This is the Zodiac Speaking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI0jnsbZwys (Fouke's account, relevant to this thread, starts at 1:18.08 into the clip.)

Crimes of the Century: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A3kD-j25jQ (Fouke's account starts at 1 Minute into the clip and lasts exactly 1 Minute.

Careful, matey. This is just a rabbit hole.

[Welsh Chappie]

"Careful, matey. This is just a rabbit hole."

Elaborate please?

[Nachtsider]

I think what Vic is trying to say, Chappie, is that the whole 'did Fouke/the SFPD lie' issue is a bit of a sinkhole. Even if we do manage to prove they lied (quite a tall order, to be sure), what difference would it make to the final outcome? How would it help us to solve the case?

[Victor]

I think what Vic is trying to say, Chappie, is that the whole 'did Fouke/the SFPD lie' issue is a bit of a sinkhole. Even if we do manage to prove they lied (quite a tall order, to be sure), what difference would it make to the final outcome? How would it help us to solve the case?

Yes. Thank you, Nachtsider.

[Welsh Chappie]

"what difference would it make to the final outcome? How would it help us to solve the case?"

Well, I don't think it's really a good idea either if we start to have an attitude of "Well, who cares if the authorities lied to cover anything up, doesn't make any difference really". Agreed, whether the SFPD lied or or not won't make a difference to the final outcome. Zodiac will still be who Zodiac will be. And as for the second question, "how would it help us to solve the case?" Well, let's say, hypothetically, that Don Fouke's reason for not mentioning the encounter with a WMA until one month later (and even then it wa only because Zodiac told the Chronicle about it) was because the man he saw, the WMA, was someone prominent, or of superior rank to himself. If that were discovered, then the pool of suspects would be reduced significantly.
There is no question that Fouke tried to cover up the fact he'd even seen anyone that night because he failed to mention it in any report and only did so one month later because Zodiac had wrote to the Chronicle describing encountering police. There's also the fact that Fouke never mentioned, until a few years ago, that the suspect had actually ascended some steps and approached a house!
So your question is kind of a rhetorical one because unless we know if and why Fouke, or the SFPD as a whole, lied or decided to cover up the incident on Jackson st, we can't say whether or not it will be of use in solving this case.

[Victor]

"what difference would it make to the final outcome? How would it help us to solve the case?"

Well, I don't think it's really a good idea either if we start to have an attitude of "Well, who cares if the authorities lied to cover anything up, doesn't make any difference really". Agreed, whether the SFPD lied or or not won't make a difference to the final outcome. Zodiac will still be who Zodiac will be. And as for the second question, "how would it help us to solve the case?" Well, let's say, hypothetically, that Don Fouke's reason for not mentioning the encounter with a WMA until one month later (and even then it wa only because Zodiac told the Chronicle about it) was because the man he saw, the WMA, was someone prominent, or of superior rank to himself. If that were discovered, then the pool of suspects would be reduced significantly.
There is no question that Fouke tried to cover up the fact he'd even seen anyone that night because he failed to mention it in any report and only did so one month later because Zodiac had wrote to the Chronicle describing encountering police. There's also the fact that Fouke never mentioned, until a few years ago, that the suspect had actually ascended some steps and approached a house!
So your question is kind of a rhetorical one because unless we know if and why Fouke, or the SFPD as a whole, lied or decided to cover up the incident on Jackson st, we can't say whether or not it will be of use in solving this case.

Welsh Chappie
Law enforcement has to have "probable cause"[1], like this person wiping down or sitting in Stine's cab, running down the street with a pistol, maybe that man's name the last one in Stine's log, etc..., in order to constitutionally be interrogated. It seems that LE felt the suspect who pointed them in the wrong direction, entering that address and/or the resident being in the garment business wasn't probable cause.

Regards

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause "A common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true". Notable in this definition is a lack of requirement for public position or public authority of the individual making the recognition, allowing for use of the term by citizens and/or the general public."

Regards

[Welsh Chappie]

Now see, again it seems you have replied with an answer that has nothing to do with the question. I am well aware of what Probable Cause is and where and when it may need to be shown. Again, Victor, you seem be more interested in ridicule than you do about actually answering something I said with a coherent and relevant response. For example, because I happen to previously mention that the occupant of 3712 Jackson (the home Zodiac was seen to approach) owned a textile business, you seem to want to sarcastically remark that "the resident being in the garment business wasn't probable cause." as if i'd suggested we should be calling for his home to be raided and he arrested, which I obviously have not. Yes, I did mention I found it interesting that the occupant of that address owned a textile business and Zodiac's hood had a symbol that, according to Hartnell, was "Made with some kind of machine, or care and attention, it wasn't just scrawled on with white pen, it was proportional." The reason why I said I think the occupant should have been looked at was because a suspect, believed to be Zodiac, was last seen ascending steps and onto the pathway that led to the front door of his home. If you don't think having a homicide suspect last seen turning towards a residence and approaching the front door does not constitute probable cause to speak to the occupants then all I can say is, i'm glad your not in law enforcement.
Anyway, what are you ranting about probable cause for in the first place? This thread, along with my previous post, was about the inconsistencies and discrepancies in the Fouke/Pelissetti accounts, and the fact that the encounter between The Suspect and SFPD on Jackson was not reported officially until Zodiac forced them into having to say something about it by announcing to his favourite news paper in a letter that "2 cops pulled a goof". So, the same with other replies you have made, i'll ask again with this one.... What the hell has probable cause got to do with anything? Or were you just going completely off topic in order to make a sarcastic comment about 'the garment business'. Your making yourself look stupid mate because people can clearly read what I have said and therefore, clearly see that your replies are not relevant to anything I had just said. It is like me asking the question " On what date do American's celebrate Independence day?" and you storming onto the thread and replying "Three Strawberry and Apple Cheesecake's". I'm not replying to your responses after this because you make no sense to me, your replies seem totally random and off topic and not relevant to anything said and make no sense, and if I am honest, just seem interested in trolling any post/thread I create/comment on. I mean I don't mind being insulted or ridiculed, but I must insist on only allowing insults and ridicule from those who are not suffering from a severe form of Verbal Diarrhoea!

[Welsh Chappie]

And I have been informed you seem to be a member of Tom's site so that may explain your obsession with trolling my posts with attempts at ridicule (which your not very good at tbh lol). If you oppose any of my belief's regarding Zodiac and want to debate it one on one publically on any of the threads I have created then bring it on.

[traveller1st]

I actually think this is a good thread. WC thank you for taking the time to consider these things and post about them. As such can everyone else please try and keep this thread on topic. You have been pre-warned.