Zodiackillersite.com

Norse:

"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."

I didn't say it did. I said, Power's claim that Stine's waybill proved that Zodiac was "right" about Washington and Maple made Power interesting. Because he also claims in at story that the waybill indicated that Stine picked up his killer at Mason and Geary. Every other source we have says that SFPD thought Nob Hill, four blocks north. The claim made by Power suggests he had access to Stine's waybill when SFPD apparently did not. THAT'S what makes Power interesting. And then we notice Power was kicked off the Zodiac story. And that Graysmith bent over backwards to lie about it all.

Interesting, because, IN POWERS OWN WORDS, he had access to evidence that as far anyone can tell, SFPD did not have. That's not a random name drawn out of a hat, that's Power's own words.

I'll state it again: it seems pretty clear that a Chronicle reporter had a copy of Hoffman's July 5 report. Zodiac wrote a letter debunking that article's sensational claim about the door being "torn open." A letter that imitated Hoffman's "spelling," etc. We also know that a Chronicle/Examiner reporter knew about Fouke's blonde suspect, the one Zodiac claimed to be, even though he looked NOTHING like the shooter. And now, this past spring, Seagull digs up an article in which a Chronicle reporter makes claims about evidence in the Stine shooting that he had, but SFPD didn't have. A reporter who was promptly kicked off the Zodiac story and lied about by Graysmith. I'd say that the notion of a Chronicle reporter possibly tampering with (or lying about) evidence in a Zodiac crime is interesting. If you're not interested in that, that's okay with me.

Is anyone else?

I am very interested, Bill - but it's hard to keep track of all this. It's impossible to comment on more than one case at the same time too, so I'll just stick to Stine for now.

Can someone post a link to the police bulletins discussed above? The ones that mention Washington and Laurel (or was it Spruce)? Can't seem to find them.

The discrepancy between Wood and Power doesn't seem all that significant to me in itself. The cops were looking for witnesses who might have seen Z hail Stine's cab. They were doing so around Nob Hill and the Fairmont Hotel (Wood) and around Mason/Geary (Power). This MAY be a significant difference if the cops had Stine's trip sheet and knew precisely where Z hailed Stine. But if they did, the theory goes out the window anyway - because the theory presupposes that Power snatched the trip sheet before the cops got a chance to look at it. That's fair to say, right?

If the cops did not have the trip sheet (and the trip sheet is NOT mentioned in the report - the only thing mentioned there is Stine's meter, which seemed to indicate that he had picked up a fare en route to his original pick-up on 9th Avenue), the discrepancy doesn't strike me as particularly odd. They were searching in an area where Stine would have likely found himself when Z hailed him - based on his prior known movements and common sense, let's put it like that. Both Mason/Geary and Nob Hill/Fairmont are within this general area (which isn't a huge one either, relatively speaking). If the cops had no trip sheet and/or didn't know exactly where Z hailed Stine, they could have (and probably would have) taken an interest in both/all these named locations.

It becomes a different matter altogether if we presuppose that Power (who stated Mason/Geary, as we know) had the trip sheet. Of course. But I'm not ready to presuppose that just yet.

Now, this trip sheet. Let's assume that Power did manage to snatch it before the cops realized it was there. He must have done so at the crime scene. Which he could have done - I have no idea whether he can be positively placed at the crime scene or not, but it seems very likely that he could have been there.

Why is there no mention of the trip sheet in the report? That's an important question. If I were a cop I would want to take a look at that trip sheet right away - in order to establish Stine's movements as well as possible, as soon as possible. And if I didn't find it, I would probably remark upon that. As far as I know there is no report of the cops having unsuccessfully searched for Stine's trip sheet. Did they study it but neglected to mention this in the report? Seems unlikely IF the trip sheet contained information about where Stine was when Z hailed him.

Then again, perhaps his trip sheet didn't contain that information. I don't know what the routine was back then, what Stine was required to log and not - or for that matter how faithfully he carried out his job in that regard. A possible explanation as to why the cops might have located the trip sheet but not mentioned it in the report - would be that it didn't say where Stine picked up Z. It said that Z's destination was Wash./Maple but nothing about where Stine had picked him up. Possible? I honestly don't know.

What I do maintain, though, is that it would be remarkable if the cops did search for Stine's trip sheet without finding it - and that this fact was not mentioned in any report. That would be downright bizarre, I'd say.

Lastly, Bill - you keep claiming that the man Fouke encountered looked NOTHING like the killer. I don't see that myself, as I've said numerous times now. What you seem to be talking about here is a serious discrepancy between a description I have never seen recorded or reported anywhere (that of a young, slim brown haired man) and all the known descriptions in the case (the report, Fouke's memo AND what was reported in the papers).

Again, there is no serious discrepancy between - for instance - the first press reports and Fouke's description. Minor differences, yes - but the idea that the killer looked NOTHING like Fouke's guy certainly can't be derived from looking at those reports. The age is similar, the hair is similar, the clothes are similar - and so forth. What am I missing here?

EDIT Found a piece in the Examiner (13th Oct 1969) which does indeed describe the killer as 25-30 yrs old, 150 pounds with reddish brown hair. That is a clearer deviation from Fouke's description - yes. But where is this coming from? Someone must have recorded what those kids said, surely? Or did our infamous reporter overhear what was said (at the station? at the crime scene?) regarding the kids' description of the killer?

Puzzling, certainly.

Examiner (to what extent this description is based on what the kids told Pelissetti and subsequently the detectives is unknown to me): 25-30 yrs old, 150 lbs, 5'8, reddish brown hair, glasses, dark jacket, dark gray pants (no mention of footwear).

Fouke: 35-40 yrs old, barrel chested, heavy, blond/graying, crew cut, 5'10, dark jacket, dark brown (pleated) pants, dark shoes, glasses.

If the composite can be said to reflect what the kids saw, they too observed a man with what can be described as a crew cut.

How far apart are these descriptions? You can word it like this: “the one is a young, slim man with brown hair – the other is a fat old blonde guy” and it sounds pretty conclusive. But that isn't the only way of wording it. There are clear similarities between the two men.

And my main point remains this: If it was glaringly obvious that the man Fouke encountered was not the man observed by the kids – then why the embarrassment? Why the memo? Did Fouke pretend to be embarrassed by the fact (which wasn't a fact – and he knew it) that he had met Z that night? And to what end? Why did the SFPD end up admitting that Fouke and Zelms drove past the Zodiac killer that night – if it was clear as day that the man they drove past had nothing to do with the murder? Why not say that, then, and avoid all the speculation as to whether Fouke had talked to the guy or not – which continues to this very day?

PS The latter can be extended to include Toschi and Armstrong, specifically. They talked to the kids. They knew precisely what the killer looked like - according to the kids. And they knew about Fouke's encounter on Jackson St - and knew exactly what his guy looked like, or rather what his description looked like.

Horan claims that Toschi and Armstrong were able to confirm what Pelissetti had already learned that night - that the kids had seen a "young man with red hair" and so forth. Now, what ends up in the report then is

a) a description of the suspect which is completely at odds with what the witnesses (the only witnesses mentioned in the report) had to say (this is Horan's take on it), or

b) a description of the suspect based on what ALL witnesses had to say, including those who were not mentioned in the report (namely Foukes and presumably Zelms, who must have seen the guy too). Pelissetti's description is a combination of what the kids said and what Fouke said later.

Now, my question is this: how likely is it that this description (based on the kids' statement - which both Toschi and Armstrong were able to confirm later that night - and then amended based on what Fouke said) is COMPLETELY at odds with what the killer actually looked like?

SFPD were presumably interested in catching the guy. I don't see how they would have taken any interest whatsoever in this old, fat blonde guy Fouke met if it was blatantly obvious that he wasn't the killer. And keep this in mind: as far as we know the composite wasn't altered because of Fouke's input. So, this is not a case of the kids' original (and true) description of the killer being discarded in favor of Fouke's (false, irrelevant) description. The composite was based on what the kids saw - Fouke's description, in his memo, comes in addition to this, separately. I don't see how these two descriptions could have existed side by side in a criminal investigation if they had nothing in common. That makes absolutely no sense regardless of what one thinks about the case as such.

Just to finish musing on this damn trip sheet (mostly to get this straight in my own head, but hopefully it can lead to some interesting ideas from others too):

* Do we have any indication that the cops found Stine's trip sheet? It's not mentioned in the report - that much seems clear. To my thinking it would have been noted if they hadn't found it. Finding it and not mentioning it strikes me as more likely than looking for it, not finding it and not mentioning it. Er, if that makes sense. What was conspicuously missing from the cab - car keys and wallet - was duly noted. One might think the trip sheet would have been in that category too if they hadn't found it. The list of items found, on the other hand, could be incomplete for one reason or another.

* But, again, no mention is made of the trip sheet in the report. What is mentioned explicitly, however, is that the meter was checked. From this it was concluded that Stine had most likely picked up a fare en route to his scheduled pick-up (on 500, 9th Ave). This could indicate that they didn't find the trip sheet - but not necessarily. As I suggested previously, they could have found the trip sheet but been unable to determine anything from it - because Stine may not have updated it. I don't know how religiously Stine logged his fares - that's one thing. And I don't what what his routines were either. Perhaps he jotted down every fare (going from A to B) he took on immediately, perhaps he did not. He might have logged them in bulks (while having a smoke, say), at certain intervals.

* Another possibility is that they found the trip sheet, complete with the info about where Stine picked up Z, but still mentioned the meter because they couldn't determine from the trip sheet alone that the Z fare was an add-on, so to speak. The trip sheet may not have indicated which fares were scheduled and which were people who hailed him en route.

* Preliminary conclusion: I don't know enough about the nature of trip sheets in the late sixties. Would be great to hear from someone who knows something about this subject.

There was a "fare book" found at the murder scene. Maybe just semantics as to whether it was called a "trip sheet" or "fare book". We have so little in the way of police reports from the Stine murder that it is impossible to say that certain aspects of the murder were or were not investigated.

http://www.zodiackiller.com/StineCab3.html

Seagull wrote:We have so little in the way of police reports from the Stine murder that it is impossible to say that certain aspects of the murder were or were not investigated.

Very true. Beyond Pelissetti's (brief) report, Stine's record of death (which hardly contains any useful info at all) and Fouke's memo - there is nothing, I believe.

I don't think the caption on the picture you linked to is accurate, though, Seagull. The item in that picture looks more like a street guide/map.