Zodiackillersite.com

Norse:

That's why Jim Wood's article is so important. He says, days after Power's report was published, that SPFD were swarming over Nob Hill, not Mason and Geary.

We can deduce plenty of facts from what we have. We know SFPD searched the park, we know Pelissetti was aware of Fouke's description, and we know a reporter from the Chronicle/Examiner knew about it. So, we know SFPD took Fouke's sighting deadly seriously, minutes after they received it. We also know that SFPD reinterviewed the kids, and SFPD's conclusion was, no, the smaller darker haired guy shot Stine, and the older heavier blonde guy, who made ZERO attempt to hide from Fouke's black and white, was just out for walk. We also know that Graysmith flat lied and lied and lied about the whole thing, and tried to make out that SFPD were too stupid and lazy to follow up on Fouke's sighting.

We also know that Zodiac claimed to be that guy anyway. What we CAN'T explain is how he knew about him. His other details about that night were debunked by Martin Lee himself. Was Zodiac the dark haired guy? If so, how did he know about the blonde guy? And how did he know two SFPD flat feet could CONFIRM his claim?

We know a reporter knew about him. We know the papers immediately forgot about him and correctly publicized the description of the actual shooter. So, that reporter knew that Zodiac COULD claim to be the blonde guy to the consternation of all. We know that reporter was NOT Bob Popp, as Graysmith claimed. We know that a Chronicle reporter scooped dumb old lazy SFPD about ANOTHER claim made by Zodiac that the facts seem to disprove. A scoop that a fellow Chronicle employee bent over backwards to ignore in his book. That's all fact. That's stuff we KNOW. How much of that adds up to the conclusion that Zodiac shot Stine? ZERO. It actual suggests something quite different.

Against ALL of that and more, we have three letters that the CHRONICLE claims contained pieces of Stine's shirt. Keep in mind, they never told the same story about that twice, and they are the ONLY witnesses who could testify to it in court. We are pretty darned sure the killer tore off at least one big part of the shirt. There is no indication as to whether he took it with him, or left it in the cab, or dropped it along his route. However, the first piece that was mailed to the Chronicle is from the MIDDLE of the overall missing area. Not dead center, but if you look at the missing area, the first piece was NOT from either end—it's from the middle. Doesn't prove much, but it sure looks weird. Then the next piece was torn into two pieces, one to the Chronicle, one supposedly to Belli. Mel Nicoali, in his official Zodiac bulletin of 1971, states TWICE in that report that TWO of those pieces are considered evidence. In other words, he seemed to think at least one of those letters was a fake. The Belli letter stands out like a sore thumb, but the page where he discusses the letters and shirt pieces is missing from the released files. Graysmith claims he was IN NICOLAI'S OFFICE "studying" that report in early 1971 "when it was being corrected.” Too bad he didn't "correct" Nicolai's "two" pieces of evidence.

Those two or three pieces of Stine's shirt are the ONLY EVIDENCE that Zodiac actually had anything to do with a real murder. IF IF IF Keith Power could make off with Stine's waybill somehow, for some reason, then why couldn't he see Stine's shirt, notice the killer had torn off some of it, and just tear off a couple more small pieces?

That is my one and only question. The SFPD bulletin says Washington and Laurel. Jim Wood says Nob Hill. The video of the evidence being taken out of the box in that TV show shows the shirt, pants, etc, it shows the gloves, etc, but not the trip sheet.

Zodiac said Washington and Maple. Keith Power says the trip sheet says Washington and Maple. But there are ZERO indications of any kind that SFPD knew that.

IF there's a good explanation for how Keith Power knew it, I'd be forever grateful.

The kids across the street described a "heavy-build" man, 5'8 tall, wearing a dark "parka" style jacket, dark brown trousers, dark shoes. He was wearing glasses. He had "reddish-blond" hair (crew cut).

Fouke describes a "barrel chested" man, "medium" to "heavy", about 5'10 tall, light hair, possibly graying (but this effect could have been caused by the light). He was wearing a dark (blue/navy) jacket (zip-up type with elastic cuffs and waist band), rust brown pants (pleated type), dark shoes (possibly low cut). He was wearing glasses.

The difference here? A couple of inches in height and "reddish-blond" compared to "light colored" hair. Other than that BOTH men were fairly heavy, both had dark clothes and shoes and both had glasses. Both had a crew cut of sorts too - the difference here being that Fouke made particular note of the man's "widow's peak".

There is no immense discrepancy here between a little guy with brown hair and a heavy blonde guy. The difference is - if anything - minimal, given how witness descriptions normally vary.

Unless the mystery junkie was described in a completely different way by the kids in a report I have never seen, I don't get what the big deal is. Looking at the two descriptions I'd say it's quite obvious both parties describe the same man - or at the very least two men who resemble each other greatly.

Norse:

That's what Pelissetti wrote in his report, so that's how we know he talked to Fouke. (That, and the fact that Pelisetti or someone called in for a search of the park.) But BOTH sketches, and every subsequent newspaper story, are based on the sketch artist and detectives talking directly to the kids. And both of those clearly state younger, smaller, and brunetter.

Graysmith claims in his book that the second sketch was done as a result of the Fouke memo, and he even lies about the description in the Fouke memo. But the Fouke memo is dated November 12, and the second sketch is dated October 18. The article accompanying the second sketch states that it was done as a result of reinterviewing the witnesses. And it's only a slight change from the first sketch. As in the other murders, a cop on the scene jumps to a premature conclusion that gets reported in the papers and then the real evidence turns out to show something else. But there's no correction issued by the Blue Meanies. But there is a correction issued by Zodiac.

You gotta read ALL of it. It's NOT what you'd expect. That's why it's so important that people keep posting everything they find here.

Norse wrote:
Fouke describes a "barrel chested" man, "medium" to "heavy", about 5'10 tall, light hair, possibly graying (but this effect could have been caused by the light).

I know this is off topic and it's probably nothing, but it just occurred to me that the difference in his hair color in the back could be the result of him wearing a toupee that didn't match his real hair, which was greying. Has anyone brought this up before? Think there could be something to it?

Bill:

Well, I've said what I think about the descriptions. From what I've seen and read the descriptions aren't radically different. They appear to describe the same man for my money.

What you suggest is that the description attributed to the teens across the street is - in fact - Pelissetti's description and that he bases this largely on Fouke, correct? Well, firstly the two descriptions do differ. It's "reddish-blonde" versus "light and graying". It's 5'8 versus 5'10. And so forth. So they aren't identical, for one thing.

If what you're claiming here is to make sense the composite (both versions) must look nothing like the description in the report. And I have never seen a credible source which states that this is so. What do you base your claim on?

If the composite is accurate (based on the kids' statements and amendments) AND looks nothing like the man Fouke encountered, don't you think Fouke would have noticed this? Much has been made of the Jackson St encounter. It was an embarrassment to Fouke and to the SFPD. That's why Fouke's description of the man wasn't recorded until a month later. Z was taunting the cops about an encounter, as we all know. The reason Fouke was embarrassed was that he was sure the man he encountered was the Zodiac killer. In your scenario there lies a perfect opportunity for Fouke - and the department - to put this pesky rumor about meeting Z to death very quickly: the man Fouke saw that night looked nothing like the killer described by the teens. It clearly wasn't him - so there's nothing to be embarrassed about. The kids saw a little junkie who matched the description of an already known taxi mugger - Fouke saw a big blonde guy. Couldn't be more obvious, you'd think.

And yet the fact is that Fouke either felt the need - or was pushed - to give a statement about what happened that night. Why? According to you he met a random guy who didn't match the description of the real killer at all.

For what it's worth I just read the first report of the Stine killing in the Sunday papers. The killer is described as being 40 years old, 170 pounds, blonde crew cut, wearing GREY pants and jacket. Nobody says anything about grey pants and jacket - not the kids, not Fouke. What could this be?

It could be sloppy, inaccurate reporting. One of the subsequent articles on the Stine killing is riddled with factual errors - hardly a name is spelled correctly. Bryan Hartnell is mentioned - only he goes by "Haffner" or something similar. This may or may not be telling, as they say.

joedetective wrote:

Norse wrote:
Fouke describes a "barrel chested" man, "medium" to "heavy", about 5'10 tall, light hair, possibly graying (but this effect could have been caused by the light).

I know this is off topic and it's probably nothing, but it just occurred to me that the difference in his hair color in the back could be the result of him wearing a toupee that didn't match his real hair, which was greying. Has anyone brought this up before? Think there could be something to it?

I think it's possible - not saying likely, but possible - that Z's disguise was more elaborate than just a pair of glasses. The idea that he wore a toupee (or even a full scale wig) has been suggested many times - not least was it a popular thing to claim among those who fancied ALA for it. He would have had a reason to disguise the obvious fact that he was bald - and someone else may have had a similar reason. Impossible to say - but again, I wouldn't rule out that Z actually (as he claimed) looked if not "entirle" then at least substantially different when he "did his thing".

If Zodiac brought a fat suit with him in the cab, then why didn't the witnesses see it? How much time did he have to put it on, while he was walking around the corner?

Do you see my problem? I need more than comic book speculation about severed hands and fantastical shape shifters. I need a FACT I can point to and say, "See? ONLY the killer could have written those letters. Not a reporter who apparently tampered with other evidence left in the cab and who apparently had access to at least some of the files at VPD."

FACTS tend to point right straight at Keith Power for writing the Zodiac letters. I need a FACT, just one, one would do it, that he COULDN'T have. I don't need to imagine all kinds of groovy ways the killer of Paul Stine "might" have done it. That won't help me. I need to PROVE that Keith Power COULDN'T have done it. How hard could it be? Surely there's one fact somewhere that proves it. We're not talking about Vikings discovering America, we're talking about a modern murder in a modern city.

By all means, fantasize away. It's a free country. But if someone could come up with a FACT that proves Keith Power COULDN'T have done it, that would help me a LOT. A lot a lot.

Anyone? Anyone at all? Thanks!

Just like he knew about the blonde guy Fouke and Zelms saw walking toward the park. He wasn't mentioned in the papers either, so how could Stine's killer know about him? He was young, 150 or so pounds, with brown hair. Fouke's suspect was 40s, 200 plus, with blonde hair possibly mixed with gray. He can't be the killer, and he wasn't mentioned in the papers, but Zodiac claimed to BE him.

This is what you say in the BRS thread, Bill.

Let me get this straight: the letter writer (who claimed responsibility for Stine's killing) could not have known about Fouke's man - because he wasn't mentioned in the papers. He was mentioned in the police report, though - according to you. That report (seemingly based on the kids' statements) was in fact based on Pelissetti's conversation with Fouke. Am I right?

Well, the man you suggest was the true killer - a young man, 150 ponds, brown hair - isn't mentioned in either the report or in the papers. The first mention of Stine's killer has him as a man around 40 (goes well with Fouke), 170 pounds (doesn't go that well with Fouke, who did describe him as heavy), with a blonde crew cut (goes well with Fouke).

Let's say the kids describe a certain man: young, not heavy, brown hair. This is ignored by Pelissetti, who bases his description in the report on what Fouke told him. Alright. Some points:

1. It seems that at least SOME of this description (the joint work of Fouke and Pelissetti - quite different from what the kids actually saw) makes it into the papers. The papers don't describe him as young. They never describe him as being as light as 150 pounds. And they describe him as "blond" initially.

2. The actual killer's description shows up...where? Not in the report, not in the papers. The composite? But does the composite vary wildly from what Fouke described? Does the composite show a young man?

3. It is more than possible to argue that the man Fouke encountered DID resemble the killer, as the latter was described in the papers. Which is it? Did the papers base their description on something other than the police report (which was, so goes the theory, at odds with what the kids described)? That would make sense, I suppose, given the premise of the theory. Well, sort of. But it's a moot point, isn't it? Because what shows up in the papers isn't radically different from what is stated in the police report - and later in Fouke's memo.

4. You make it out as though the only way in which the letter writer could possibly know about the man Fouke encountered was by reading the police report. That is what you're saying? Or am I mistaken here? Well, if so - that's obvious enough, yes. Because Fouke's encounter wasn't mentioned in the papers - the first we hear of it is when the letter writer makes his little taunt. But:

a) Isn't it problematic that ALL the known descriptions (the report, what was printed in the papers, what Fouke stated in his memo) are similar? There are variations, yes - but they are, as I've said already, minor ones. The huge discrepancy you suggest only exists between Fouke/the report/the papers and what the kids supposedly witnessed (a description Pelissetti failed to take note of when he wrote the report). In other words between known descriptions of the killer and an unknown, never-written-down description the kids gave the cops on the night of the murder. That is hard to relate to - given it's unknown.

b) The most obvious reason why the letter writer knew about Fouke's encounter with a man on Jackson St...is that the letter writer encountered Fouke on Jackson St.

BillRobison wrote:If Zodiac brought a fat suit with him in the cab, then why didn't the witnesses see it? How much time did he have to put it on, while he was walking around the corner?

Do you see my problem? I need more than comic book speculation about severed hands and fantastical shape shifters. I need a FACT I can point to and say, "See? ONLY the killer could have written those letters. Not a reporter who apparently tampered with other evidence left in the cab and who apparently had access to at least some of the files at VPD."

FACTS tend to point right straight at Keith Power for writing the Zodiac letters. I need a FACT, just one, one would do it, that he COULDN'T have. I don't need to imagine all kinds of groovy ways the killer of Paul Stine "might" have done it. That won't help me. I need to PROVE that Keith Power COULDN'T have done it. How hard could it be? Surely there's one fact somewhere that proves it. We're not talking about Vikings discovering America, we're talking about a modern murder in a modern city.

By all means, fantasize away. It's a free country. But if someone could come up with a FACT that proves Keith Power COULDN'T have done it, that would help me a LOT. A lot a lot.

Anyone? Anyone at all? Thanks!

Well, if you deal in FACTS you should leave out all the appearances. If it's a fact that said reporter tampered with evidence and/or had access to police reports, then this fact must be demonstrated.

What you demand is hard to deliver when it comes to many people involved in the case. It may be hard to deliver when it comes to people who had zero known involvement in the case too, for that matter. The fact that one cannot prove positively that A did not write the Zodiac letters doesn't make him an interesting person in this context - not in itself. We can't prove positively that Toschi didn't write the letters. Or Armstrong. Or some reporter from Vallejo. There are dozens of people who were involved with the case on both the LE and the media side who could have, conceivably, gathered enough information to write those letters. It's not a stunning fact that we can't prove positively that none of them did it. That's the nature of the Z case - it is what it is, based on the evidence available.

Norse wrote:

joedetective wrote:

Norse wrote:
Fouke describes a "barrel chested" man, "medium" to "heavy", about 5'10 tall, light hair, possibly graying (but this effect could have been caused by the light).

I know this is off topic and it's probably nothing, but it just occurred to me that the difference in his hair color in the back could be the result of him wearing a toupee that didn't match his real hair, which was greying. Has anyone brought this up before? Think there could be something to it?

I think it's possible - not saying likely, but possible - that Z's disguise was more elaborate than just a pair of glasses. The idea that he wore a toupee (or even a full scale wig) has been suggested many times - not least was it a popular thing to claim among those who fancied ALA for it. He would have had a reason to disguise the obvious fact that he was bald - and someone else may have had a similar reason. Impossible to say - but again, I wouldn't rule out that Z actually (as he claimed) looked if not "entirle" then at least substantially different when he "did his thing".

Yeah, I thought about it after and realized that this idea of a wig probably goes back to Greysmith, in an attempt to explain the discrepancy in ALA and the PH composite. I think it just seeped into my subconscious or whatever. There's just something about that comment of the hair possibly greying in the back that sticks out to me. I wonder after 45 years, if there's anything that hasn't already been hashed and rehashed.