Zodiackillersite.com

Victor wrote:

Welsh Chappie wrote:"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

traveller1st wrote: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.