One Man and His Dog.

[Welsh Chappie]

Just been thinking about Armond Pelissetti and his comments of:

"I got down all the way down to the next corner which was Maple (and Jackson Intersection). Decision No. 2, which way to go? I looked to the left towards the Presidio and saw absolutely nothing. It was much darker there and I figured the chance of finding somebody was almost Nil. I turned to the right and I saw a man walking his dog. He was somewhat older than the description I had, and a whole lot thinner and had absolutely no blood on his clothes. I asked that gentleman If he saw anybody walking in the area and he told me 'No'."

So, the obvious question: Who was the man with the dog?

And considering Pelissetti claims that he got down to Maple & Jackson corner just a minute or so before Fouke arrives at the same corner after Pelissetti had turned and went back up Jackson, then this raises two questions.

1. Where was the Dog Walker now?
2. If Armond Pelissetti has just walked up Jackson St a minute, maybe even seconds before, how come he doesn't see anyone walking down Jackson on the other side? Fouke reports that upon his arrival at the corner of Maple and Jackson, a stocky white male wearing glasses was walking down Jackson on the sidewalk.

Anyway, main purpose of this thread is to discuss the whole question of the dog walker and what, if anything, is known about him.

[BuckwheatFlowers]

I thought the dog walker was Mr. X.

[Welsh Chappie]

Mr X? Who would that be?

[BuckwheatFlowers]

I don't think I'm supposed to post his name on here, so I won't.

[traveller1st]

viewforum.php?f=44

[Welsh Chappie]

Thanks Trav. And Buck I understand now why that is after looking a few different site's and forums.

I think I should make clear here that I am not accusing the dog walker of any involvement in the crime itself. What I did question in the original post, and still do, is question Two listed in the original post, that being:

"If Armond Pelissetti has just walked up Jackson St a minute, maybe even seconds before, how come he doesn't see anyone walking down Jackson on the other side? Fouke reports that upon his arrival at the corner of Maple and Jackson, a stocky white male wearing glasses was walking down Jackson on the sidewalk."

Who he was isn't really of importance to the overall nature of this post, and I asked out of curiosity rather than suspicion because I thought he would have been interviewed as a possible witness.

EDIT: I was curious how A.P could speak to the dog walker at that Intersection, and a minute or so later, Fouke pulls up there and doesn't report seeing anyone there other than the suspect walking down Jackson.

[Welsh Chappie]

I also wonder if this man with his dog could be the reason for Zodiac ending up at Washington and Cherry Intersection instead of the apparent intended location of Washington and Maple. Pelissetti said that he 'Turned to the right' while at Jackson and Maple intersection and saw the man with his dog which means the man was on Maple Street hill somewhere. If he was going up Maple St then this scenario would be unavailable, but if he had come down Maple St heading towards Jackson, then he would have had to have been at, or in the general area of, Washington and Cherry St Intersection at some point. It would be nice to be able to ask him if he had been at Washington and Maple streets about 5 to 10 min's prior to seeing Armond and ask him does he recall any vehicle passing that intersection when he was there?

As I said, I don't see him as a suspect, but a witness.

[Welsh Chappie]

I have mentioned the Pacific Heights Murder and the continuity being all wrong as per the statements of the people at or near the scene. But nobody has yet to really give the inconsistencies an explanation that provokes the response "Ahh I see, that's what caused the confusion..." To me, this is extremely important to get to the bottom of what happened on Oct 11, 1969 in the minutes after 10:00pm.

Kjell Qvale was apparently walking his dog on Maple St near Jackson Intersection when Armond Pelissetti arrived there looking for the White Male who had just dashed off Down Cherry & Jackson. Qvale was actually on Maple St, according to Armond P. anyway (Although Qvale's location is disputed by some). If Z dashed North on Maple and into the Grounds of the Presidio then Qvale surely would have had to see him. That, coupled with the fact that Armond Pelissetti is on Z's tail in hot pursuit along Cherry, then Right onto Jackson and down all the way to Maple and Qvale's supposed location opposite the Presidio Entrance on Maple. Armond would simply have had to have passed Z to on his way to Maple St or the Zodiac would have had to had gone into the Grounds of the Presidio already which, we know with reasonable surety, he hadn't (Because Don & Eric encounter him on the sidewalk around the exact area where Armond was just stood before he left to go back back up Jackson. So where did he appear from? How did Armond not pass him either on his way to, or making his way back from, Maple & Jackson Streets? Illustration below:

Zodiac Pacific Heights Crime Scene Photo 2014 75% again ffs.png

[Norse]

Seeing as this is the most recent thread touching on the subject, I'll post here. I'm puzzled by both the dog walker and the man who was apparently recognized by a young witness. Here's what I can gather:

There were three witnesses to Zodiac's movements at the crime scene. The youngest of these was 13 years old.

A witness, described as an eight year old kid, thought that he or she recognized the perpetrator (as someone who lived in the area, a neighbor or at least a local guy). The guy was looked at - and cleared. Now, this surely means that this 8yr old kid witnessed Z going about his business at the crime scene. Which would seem to indicate that there was a fourth witness, in addition to the three teenagers across the street (there was no eight year old kid among the three).

Is this simply a typo/misunderstanding in the report? Is this "8yr old" really one of the teens? Or is there in fact a fourth witness?

Another report mentions that a man was brought to the crime scene for identification. One of the teenagers had a look at this man and concluded he was not Z. Now, surely these two incidents are one and the same? One of the teens mentions to the cops that Z reminded her (from what I can gather it was a girl) of a local guy. This local guy is then picked up and brought to the crime scene for identification. The girl looks at him and concludes that he isn't Z, i.e. she has made a mistake, the guy may have resembled Z in some shape or form, but it isn't him.

The confusion, then, is due to the fact that a teenager has for some reason been logged as an eight year old. Is this the explanation?

Lastly, whoever this local guy was, he was NOT the infamous Mr X - according to Pelissetti. He, Pelissetti, claims that the "dog walker" was indeed Mr X, but that the guy who was brought to the crime scene for identification was NOT Mr X.

Hm. I would give a lot to see an unredacted version of the report which mentions this 8yr old kid and this local guy.

[Welsh Chappie]

"I'm puzzled by both the dog walker and the man who was apparently recognized by a young witness."

It puzzled me how Pelissetti encounters 'the dog walker' at the intersection of Jackson & Maple and yet only a minute or so later, possibly seconds, after Pelissetti leaves to go back up Jackson, Fouke arrives at the same intersection and there is no man walking a dog anywhere and instead, a white male descending Jackson Street sidewalk walking toward Fouke & Zelms and yet Armond Pelissetti seems to have missed this man as he walked back up Jackson seconds before! Doesn't make sense does it? Unless.....

There never were two different men out there that night, a dog walker seen by Pelissetti, and a white male seen be Fouke, but actually, this was the same man? How is that possible? Well this is 3rd, maybe even a 4th hand claim that was made on a different thread and it's this:

"In June 2005, I was speaking to Mike Butterfield, who was going original research on the case.

In June 2005, Butterfield called me one night and said that he had just gotten off the phone with Armond Pelissetti. He told me that Pelissetti had specifically asked that Butterfield not tell me what they had discussed. However, there was one detail Buttefield had to confirm and he knew that I was the one to confirm it. So he spilled the beans.

He told me that Pelissetti said that he had a "very tight time line" in going around the block and ran into the "dog walker" (whom he identified by name to Butterfield) "very quickly." He was standing still in a "driveway" by Washington and Maple. (There are no driveways on Maple between Jackson and Washington. Was he in a driveway on Washington? Was it towards or away from the crime scene?) He was not walking the dog but just standing there. AP asked him if he'd seen anyone and he said that he had not."


Now if that is true, and the 'dog walker' didn't actually have a dog, nor was he on Maple walking the pooch, then this may be the same man that Fouke see's because Armond see's him 'standing on a driveway' and as Fouke approaches a White Male, he tunes onto a Pathway/Driveway of 3712 himself. The 'dog walker' can now be named legally as Kjell Qvale.