Zodiackillersite.com

BillRobison wrote:
Stine's killer was 20 years younger, 50-70 lbs lighter, and several shades brunetter than the guy F and Z saw walking on Maple. So the guy they saw was not the killer.

Eh? How do you know that?

The physical descriptions in this case isn't something I tend to put much emphasis on, to be honest. And I have no idea how you reach the conclusion above. The most obvious explanation as to how Z knew about the two cops and the "goof" they pulled is that he encountered them personally, walking down Jackson St that night.

What you make out as a paradox is only that if you presuppose that the guy Fouke met on Jackson was NOT the killer - but I don't see how you can presuppose that. Who said Z was twenty years younger, much slimmer and more of a brunette? The kids across the street?

The discrepancies between the killer's appearance as described by various witnesses aren't all that remarkable to me. They're within the range of what one might expect - in my opinion. If A says the killer is a pregnant woman with a huge beard and B claims he's a midget with a flaming red afro - then yes, something's up. But that isn't the sort of thing we're dealing with here.

Norse:

If you compare the description from BOTH SFPD bulletins to the one in the Fouke memo, then the differences are obvious.

Norse: All I'm saying is, according to the actual LE files, which recently became available, there is no actual evidence that the person who wrote the letters killed any of the victims. And a lot of the things we have been assuming all these years are wrong, and very often, flat out lies. In fact, it turns out that the actual evidence tends to point the other way. The FBI reports from late July/early August 1970 mention the partial match Hamlet found. You can find them on several websites. I don't like to post links to those guys websites on here. Anyone else?

Is it possible someone else wrote the letters? Apparently. And every "new" clipping or file that gets posted on one of these websites points more and more and more to a Chronicle reporter. It's on a different thread, but the "link" between the Berryessa car door and the Zodiac letters consists of the words "Vallejo" and "by knife." If we look at it ourselves, the V is different, the a is different, the i is different, and the b, f, e, maybe k and n are "similar." Which is about as much of Allen's and "Earl Best's" handwriting and Gaikowsky's handwriting that also supposedly matches. Try it yourself. Practice your Zodiac handwriting for seven weeks and see if you can't do better. Because the entire first letter, including the symbol, had been printed in the newspapers almost 8 weeks before the attack. I'm not suggesting Power killed Cecelia Shepard. I'm suggesting someone who read the Vallejo papers did and simply blamed it on that Code Killer guy. With some success.

Okay, let's look at your explanation. Police "errors." How many? EVERY piece of evidence? EVERY witness description? Including Fouke's? Then, how difficult would it be for a reporter to concoct a fake Zodiac killer?

Vince: Well, I see no harm in admitting that it's more than a little bit possible. It wouldn't have taken much, except the cajones to waltz into the lab where Stine's clothes were drying and take a piece of his shirt. We now know, thanks to the articles Seagull recently dug up, that a Chronicle reporter apparently had the cajones to waltz out to the parking garage and grab Stine's waybill. The only other explanation is, he had the cajones to make the whole thing up. And then we're still stuck with a Chronicle reporter who made up lies to make the Zodiac look real.

I just can't find any other "evidence" to the contrary. Can anyone else?

To me the varying descriptions of Z (as per the canonical crimes) aren't MORE differing than what you'd expect under the circumstances. Most witnesses saw him at night for a brief period of time. The exception is Hartnell who was in no position to determine either his age or say anything about his facial features. What he saw was a heavy-set (the impression might have been enhanced by the fact that the attacker wore unshapely, baggy clothes) man, around six feet tall. None of the other descriptions given are at dramatic odds with this. Witness descriptions will vary - in many cases they do so to a far greater degree than those in the Z case.

What Horan claims is roughly this: The man the kids across the street saw in the cab fit the description of a "taxi mugger" already known to the SFPD. Another witness (so says Horan - I don't know where he gets this information from), "possibly a fellow cab driver", corroborated this, having seen a man matching this description enter Stine's cab somewhere in the vicinity of Mason/Geary (again - I don't know where Horan gets this from).

Fouke then encounters a completely different guy on Jackson - a man who looks nothing like the taxi mugger and the man observed by the kids across the street.

Implication (or accusation, more like it): Z didn't kill Stine. The latter was killed by said taxi mugger - and someone capitalized on this, someone who was into writing letters and claiming to be a serial killer. This someone stole a piece of Stine's bloody shirt, mailed it to the Chronicle...and so forth.

Two things: Don Fouke (so goes one story) either saw the composite based on the kids' description or was given this description verbally - and confirmed that this matched the description of the man he had encountered on Jackson. He modified the description, yes - adding some details, the man was heavier and older, etc. If the first description, which he corrected (let's put it like that), had been nothing like the man he encountered - well, I assume he would have done more than to correct it slightly.

Is Don Fouke simply lying about the whole thing?

Secondly: Is it reasonable to say that whoever killed Stine never took a piece of his shirt? When was it first remarked that a piece had been removed? I mention this point because it strikes me as crucial. Either everyone is in on this thing - or it's just the reporter (and possibly some cronies of his). Is the coroner in on it too? Or did the reporter manage to snatch a piece of the shirt before the cops (or the coroner, or whoever) noticed? Fooling them into thinking the killer had taken it?

If the killer did take it - and the reporter managed to secure ANOTHER piece of Stine's shirt...it becomes very interesting. We're then dealing with a taxi mugger who doesn't only kill his victim (which he hadn't done previously - or had he?) but takes off with a piece of his shirt for God knows what purpose (certainly not to mail it along with a letter - because that particular trick was someone else's feat).

And, the other possibility - if the reporter (and only the reporter) ripped a piece off Stine's shirt in order to continue with his letter campaign, we have to conclude either that pretty much everyone in the department was in on the "prank" OR that nobody noticed that Stine's shirt was in one piece at the crime scene and thus weren't surprised when it later transpired that someone had torn a piece from it.

For what it's worth, Horan does seem to presuppose that Stine's killer took a piece of the shirt with him, "for whatever reason" (or words to that effect). Well, I would like to know what reason that might be. We're dealing - according to this theory - with a junkie (I believe) who accidentally shot Stine as he was mugging him. It was a standard taxi mugging gone wrong, nothing to do with the Zodiac killer. Fine. Now explain why on earth this unrelated junkie who didn't even mean to kill Paul stine, meticulously tore off a piece of his shirt - and disappeared with it.

That seems like a proper puzzle to me.

Norse:

In order to keep this thread on the tracks, let's just look at the material ourselves, and not drag other people's interpretations into it.

When we read Pelissetti's report, he mentions a description similar to the one in the actual Fouke memo. We know that SPFD searched the park, so SOMEONE at SFPD paid enough attention to Fouke's blonde guy walking that way. Fouke said the original dispatch said the suspect was a Negro Male Adult. Maybe it did, we don't know. But when Fouke got to the scene, Pelissetti or someone told him, "The witnesses said he was a white guy." Fouke probably then said, "Well, Crunchberries! We saw a flipping white guy over at Jackson and Maple walking toward the park. We thought we were supposed to be looking for a black guy.” At that point, Pelissetti or whoever radioed SPFD to send units to search the park. Pelissetti then typed his report based on a combo of the kids description and Fouke's. The October 12 story (no byline) in Sunday's Chronicle Examiner mentioned the blonde hair, heavier weight, and age about 40, and "later reports [Fouke] indicated someone was seen running into Julius Kahn playground . . ." No mention of two cops, just blond hair and someone was seen "running" into the park. So it's reasonable to deduce that the REPORTER knew it was two cops who "reported" a blonde guy headed for the park. The Examiner article of the 13 (the one Horan dug up) gives the "correct" description given by the kids of a younger, thinner brunette guy that was used to create the first composite and the second one. All subsequent articles and SFPD bulletins more or less use this description.

Graysmith claimed the second composite of October 18 was a result of the Fouke memo. Not true, the Fouke memo is dated November 12. The very latest clippings uploaded to this site (maybe Horan hasn't seen these) include one that specifically mentions that the new composite of the 18 was the result of detectives reinterviewing the kids. Both of those composites say the suspect was younger, thinner, and brunetter than Fouke's suspect. So, the blonde guy did not shoot Stine, apparently. Nothing weird about the confusion, EXCEPT that Zodiac somehow knew specifically that "two cops" saw the blonde guy at Jackson and Maple. Did they talk to him? Fouke adamantly says no, but whether they did or not, there doesn't seem to be any way for the actual shooter to have known about it. But the reporter who wrote the first story seems to have known most of it, at least.

That was my point. Does that prove that Hal Snook wrote the Zodiac letters? I don't know about that. But it does still leave the question of how Zodiac knew about the blonde guy Fouke saw, if he didn't shoot Stine. And Zodiac did the same thing in his second letter when he claimed to be Andy Jr who did not shoot Darlene, and who was not mentioned in the papers, but who WAS mentioned in Hoffman's report. There is very little possible doubt that both a Chronicle reporter AND Zodiac definitely saw that report.

Hal Snook or not, that's quite a few coincidences buzzing around one person's head. And now, thanks to one of those recently discovered articles, we know of one specific Chronicle reporter who seems to have had access to evidence from Stine's cab that SFPD didn't have possession of. And still don't, as far as I know.

IF, if, if, if, someone took ANOTHER piece of Stine's shirt (the largest piece, which the killer apparently tore off to use as a rag, is still missing) they had to do it 1. At the scene 2. In the ambulance 3. At the morgue 4. In the crime lab itself. Out of all those possibilities, only one would have been when the person could have been ALONE with the shirt, and that would have been when it was laid out to dry in the lab and Deputy Schultz was busy doing something else.

From about 1:00 am to about 5:30 am, both the cab and the shirt were left unattended. The only people I can think of who could have had access to them at that time would be either a cop, or a reporter. And there is exactly one person on that list who had access to Hoffman's report, Fouke's verbal report to Pelissetti, AND Stine's waybill. And it ain't Hal Snook. And it ain't Bob Popp. It's Keith Power. Or, at least, Power's solid gold source.

Anyone ever seen Keith Power's handwriting?

All that is very well, Bill - and there are plenty of discrepancies, holes, oddities and whatnot in this case. If there weren't any - if everything everyone said and did half a century ago made perfect sense all the way - now that would be suspect!

The most obvious explanation for these discrepancies is not that someone staged a hoax, however. The latter is the standard conspiracy theorist's response to a lack of clarity or coherence. People are sometimes forgetful, sometimes not very good at their jobs, sometimes - yes - downright mendacious. Doesn't mean there's a conspiracy.

You didn't answer what I consider a crucial question here: Why did Stine's REAL killer, the one who was not a letter writing maniac, find it necessary to rip off a piece of Paul's shirt and run away with it?

EDIT Just to make it clear, I'm not dismissing your take on this as a "conspiracy theory", i.e. a euphemism for "crackpot theory" or what have you. The case remains unsolved and your take isn't any less valid than many other theories I've seen. What I mean is that when we're faced with a bunch of holes, discrepancies, contradictions, etc. - the conspiracy angle seems like a welcome one: how do you explain all this? Well, somebody was faking it, hoaxin' it...there are holes and contradictions because someone was out to fool the general public from day one.

I don't buy that myself. There are other ways to explain it. We're looking at these statements, these reports, articles and God knows what else - all this which leaves much to be desired - from a vantage point half a century down the line. There is bound to be PLENTY which doesn't make sense.

Norse:

The witnesses say they saw Stine's killer wiping down the door areas with a light colored cloth. The three pieces of shirt mailed in Zodiac letters were torn off from an area to the left (from the back) of a larger rectangle that's still missing. Does that make sense?

I'm NOT claiming any conspiracy or hoax theories, I'm trying to prove them WRONG. But I'm having trouble. Long story short, IF the letters were a hoax, THEN the hoaxer would have to have taken a couple of pieces of Stine's shirt. A big piece was already missing, apparently. IF someone, ANYONE, happened to already be involved in said hoax, THEN they could have noticed that, and thought, "Hey, I could send some pieces in Zodiac letters. Wouldn't that be groovy?"

In other words, IF the letters were a hoax, then SOMEONE involved in that hoax HAD to have access to Stine's shirt AND know about Fouke's "suspect" AND have access (or know someone with access) to Hoffman's report of July 5. There is simply no other way to explain the shirt pieces. Even if the handwriting of the letters changes AFTER the October 13 letter, that letter DEFINITELY matches the first two.

EVERYTHING else does allow that, yes, the person writing the letters was NOT NECESSARILY involved in ANY of the other murders. Maybe Stine's killer (or an accomplice) wrote the Zodiac letters. That is certainly possible. But there's no way to PROVE it.

But, IF IF IF the letters were a hoax, THEN someone MUST fit the criteria above. That's a VERY short list of people. A cop? Obviously. A reporter? MAYBE. If, if, if, we can find a reporter who COULD have obtained a copy of Hoffman's report AND a section of Stine's shirt. A reporter at the Chronicle (no byline) obviously had a copy of Hoffman's report. It sure does look like Zodiac did too. And a few other reports. And he directly pointed out what the Chronicle reporter got WRONG in that report (window was rolled down all ready, a suspect as arrested leaving the scene slowly and quietly, etc. See my comments on that thread.) And he even imitated Hoffman's unique style, just to prove he had a copy of that report.

Soooooooo, we are definitely looking for a Chronicle reporter who ALSO had access to evidence in the Stine shooting. NO ONE else COULD have done it, as far as we know. And thanks to the people on THIS website, we see one. Keith Power claims he had access to Stine's waybill, which SFPD apparently did not and does not have. He is immediately kicked off the Zodiac story for life, and Graysmith, who makes a lot of baloney claims about the veracity of the Zodiac letters, and who worked with Power, not only ignores Power, but actually lies about which Chronicle reporter was working SPFD in those days.

IF there were just SOME way, ANY way, to prove Keith Power COULDN'T have done it (accomplice or not, Power HAD to be involved,) then that would help me a lot. Because it sure looks like he could have.

Fair enough - when you put it like that, it sounds much better.

There are some points which you - seemingly - presuppose here, and which are unclear to me:

The waybill/trip sheet. Did Power see it? Quite possible that he did. Is it a FACT that the cops did NOT see it? I have to doubt that one - I have never seen any proof of this. As you mentioned yourself before (possibly in the other thread), things weren't necessarily strict and proper back then. Reporters could have access to information we're not inclined to think they HAD access to - by modern standards things might've been downright sloppy in this sense. And this, again, could explain both this and that. But unless you can demonstrate that the ONLY people who had access to a certain piece of vital information were a) Zodiac and b) a reporter, then...well, then you have a problem. If all sorts of people were privy to all sorts of information, then it will be impossible to prove anything in this regard.

Secondly - yet again - the shirt: the most obvious explanation as to why a piece of Stine's shirt was torn off is that the killer wanted to secure some undeniable (and suitably grotesque) proof that he was the one responsible for Stine's death. If this killer now all of a sudden is NOT the person responsible for sending the letters, then this explanation goes out the window. And a huge question replaces it: why on earth did the killer take off with a piece of Stine's shirt if he did NOT intend to send it in portions to various people to shock them and prove that he WAS the killer? I think one needs to answer this question before one can proceed with the theory.

Here's what I think:

Firstly, it's not enough to ask “can we prove that A didn't do it?” The same can be asked for, say, Toschi. Can we prove that he isn't Z and/or the letter writer? What about Gaik? Or Kane? Or Richard Nixon?

Secondly, it's an extraordinary proposition. Much more so than to put someone forth as a Z candidate. The premise here is not that A was Z but that A for reasons unknown fabricated Z. It begs the question – WHY. If we claim that A is Z the latter question is easy enough to answer: he was nuts. He was a crazy killer, that was his “motive”. But is sheer insanity sufficient explanation for why a well known reporter would go out of his way to create a phantom serial killer? I don't think so myself. It's not impossible – but it needs some explaining.

I would begin in that end if I were a proponent of such a theory: why did he (they) do it? Why should we even consider him (they) as a suspect/suspects?