Zodiackillersite.com

"Now, this surely means that this 8yr old kid witnessed Z going about his business at the crime scene."

You'd think so. I have a pending FOIA request for the release of the name of the suspect given by the eight year old witness. It is looking promising as I sent the request back in Nov and the longer it takes, the better your chances of success.

I successfully got the release of another suspect named in the same document last year but at the time I submitted that request Kjell Qvale was still alive so if he is listed as the man the eight year old saw then they wouldn't have released it last year. However, I sent the pending request after Qvale passed away so if he is the man named by the eight year old then this time they will release it. I'll upload to the site as soon as I get the response.

Thanks for this info, Welsh!

There are so many details here which are puzzling and confusing. Something is off about the timeline here - of that I am convinced.To me there seems to be a discrepancy between what Pelissetti allegedly does (after having dealt with the kids and called in the murder) with what Fouke does (specifically the Z encounter outside 3712 Jackson).

The remark about Dog Walker not walking his dog but just standing there is interesting. But surely Pelissetti didn't change his story to the extent that there no longer is a dog in the equation at all? If so, you really have to wonder about the faculties of these people. Pelissetti says, then (to Butterfield), that he came across Dog Walker (identified as KQ) roughly on Maple and Washington. That's a fair distance from KQ's home - which is the first thing that springs to mind. But. What Pelissetti claims is this (and that part of his story has never changed, I think): he dealt with the kids, checked on Stine, called it in. Then he followed Z, as it were, based on what the kids told him (he went up Cherry, headed for the park). He proceeds along Cherry, cautiously (not wanting anyone to jump out and surprise him), turns right on Jackson, goes past the spot where Fouke sees Z, reaches the Maple/Jackson intersection - and then what? Does he proceed down Maple towards Washington, where he meets KQ at some point (near Washington)? Alright, let's say he does. He talks to him (perhaps twice) and then, presumably, heads west on Washington back towards the crime scene. He has now completed a tour round the block - and somewhere on Cherry he meets Fouke.

But how long does it take Fouke to show up here? Fouke is en route to the crime scene, responding to the same dispatch Pelissetti received (the one about a black suspect). I don't understand that. What Pelissetti does takes time. He completes a trip round the block on foot, proceeding with caution, at least at first - and speaks to KQ (perhaps twice) - how long does all this take? And it all happens while Fouke is en route, having responded to the same dispatch Pelissetti responded to. I find this hard to grasp, frankly.

Z has walked away from the cab, he's heading north on Cherry - this is undeniable. If we assume that it was indeed Z Fouke drove past, he - Z - must have turned right on Jackson. How long does it take him to move up Cherry, turn right on Jackson and proceed to - roughly - No 3712, where he is observed by a passing Fouke? And, again, how long does it take Fouke to get to 3712 Jackson from his starting point (I don't recall exactly where he was when he received the dispatch - but he wasn't that far away (nearly on Washington going north, I think - meaning he had to go north from Washington up to Jackson and then go straight west for some blocks, not that many).

Yeah, again - I don't get this.

Pelissetti could have gone straight east on Washington from the crime scene - thus meeting Dog Walker (KQ) south on Maple shortly after. But he didn't go east - he went north, up Cherry, following in Z's footsteps (as indicated by the kids).

Another thing that simply doesn't add up is this...

Armond Pelissetti is the first officer on the scene. He exit's his vehicle and notices some children heading toward the cab. He quickly ushers them back into the alcove of their home front door that they'd just come from. It is at this point that Armond states that the kids said the whoever had done this had just walked off down Cherry street and told A.P that he was not black, but white. A.P stated "I couldn't get to the radio fast enough to let everyone else know" and broadcast the correction to BOTL for a White Male Adult, not Black.

So, considering Armond broadcast this a good 5, maybe even 10 minutes before Fouke rolls up on the White Male, how can Fouke & Zelms not be aware that it's a white Male they are looking for because A.P has received an update on the suspect description from the three teens and immediately broadcast the correction?

Welsh Chappie wrote:Another thing that simply doesn't add up is this...

Armond Pelissetti is the first officer on the scene. He exit's his vehicle and notices some children heading toward the cab. He quickly ushers them back into the alcove of their home front door that they'd just come from. It is at this point that Armond states that the kids said the whoever had done this had just walked off down Cherry street and told A.P that he was not black, but white. A.P stated "I couldn't get to the radio fast enough to let everyone else know" and broadcast the correction to BOTL for a White Male Adult, not Black.

So, considering Armond broadcast this a good 5, maybe even 10 minutes before Fouke rolls up on the White Male, how can Fouke & Zelms not be aware that it's a white Male they are looking for because A.P has received an update on the suspect description from the three teens and immediately broadcast the correction?

This is precisely what's been bothering me too. It seems to me that Fouke must have been responding to the original dispatch, the one about a mugging and a black male suspect. And that is odd indeed, as you suggest, if what Pelissetti says is the case.

Pelissetti: Arrives at scene, talks to kids, confirms that Stine is dead, gets on the radio to report the new situation. He then moves around the block and meets up with Fouke back on Cherry St somewhere. And yet Fouke states clearly enough that he isn't informed about the new circumstances (murder + white suspect) before he learns this from Pelissetti directly. Something is definitely off here.

Fouke received a dispatch (about a mugging and a black suspect) roughly on Presidio Avenue and Washington. He then drives north and turns left on Jackson St, driving straight west until he passes Z outside No 3712. Driving from Washington/Presidio Ave to Cherry St/Washington via Jackson St takes - what - two-three minutes? Moving on foot from the crime scene to 3712 Jackson takes - roughly the same?

Well, that makes sense. Fouke receives the original dispatch on Presidio Ave/Washington, goes straight to the crime scene via Jackson St and meets Z outside No 3712. Shortly after he runs into Pelissetti on Cherry St.

But what does NOT make sense is that Pelissetti is able to make a tour of the block on foot (proceeding with caution, stopping to talk to a man walking his dog) BEFORE Fouke makes it to their meeting point on Cherry St. I can't make sense of that. What is it that I don't get here? Is Fouke responding to a second dispatch - and not the same dispatch Pelissetti responds to? A second dispatch that somehow contains the same erroneous information as the original one? If so, why didn't Fouke respond to the first dispatch? He was patrolling the general area, wasn't he?

Well I've tried to make sense of how it was Fouke never heard Armond's updated description and one theory I came up with, which is rather unpopular, is that there never was an incorrect suspect description of 'Black Male' given and that this was simply a cover story invented after the fact and after Zodiac embarrassed them with his 'ps - two cops pulled a goof' brag. There is no mention anywhere in any reports of the incorrect description until after Zodiac says they stopped and spoke to him. This would give the SFPD reason to now come up with the story of the initial description being incorrectly given as a Black Male because imagine the anger from the public if it was known that Fouke drove past the Zodiac and knew he was looking for a white male as he did so? Now, with this story, they can limit the damage this blunder will cause the PD and give an answer to the coming question of the SFPD's Competence. However, because they had to make the story up on the spot and in reaction to Zodiac's letter, they didn't think it through properly and realise that while saying this is what happened, it now causes all sorts of continuity problems.

As for how Armond could get halfway around the block and back and stopping to chat to Qvale etc without Fouke arriving at, or passing, Armond at Maple or on Jackson? No idea. I have wondered if the 'two cops who pulled a goof' that Z refers to is not, as we all think, Fouke & Zelms, but actually Pelissetti and Peda. Fouke is adamant he did not stop Zodiac and speak to him but Zodiac is adamant two cops did.

I said also previously that I don't understand, after the teens inform A.P that the suspect has just seconds ago disappeared down Cherry st, why A.P takes off after the armed and dangerous suspect on foot? He said himself "There are innumerable alcoves so I was using every technique I know so I didn't get my head blown off."
Well, why not get back in the prowl car and give chase? This seems the logical thing to do both for his own safety (far more difficult to hit a target protected by a metallic box that is moving at 30/40 MPH than it is to hit a clear and unprotected target travelling at 3 MPH on foot) and also it is the best chance of quickly closing the distance on the offender and catching up to him.

Hi-

Pelissetti did not go all the way around the block and back before encountering Fouke. Fouke pulled up to Cherry/Jackson as AP was slowly making his way up Cherry after speaking to the kids and before he got to Jackson. The timing demands that it can't be any other way. Otherwise, it took Fouke about twenty minutes to get there if you allow AP to walk one circuit of the block and to be starting another.

Pelissetti told a guy (conversation was recorded accidentally) that he first saw KQ in his own front yard. That is much different from seeing him either standing or walking on Maple. Why doesn't AP say he walked all the way east one half block past Maple on the DVD? He never placed himself that far east before. AP called me on January 12, 2004 and told me that my suspect "had an alibi" and was cleared. Which alibi is it? He didn't tell me at that time that he was the one providing the alibi. He let me twist in the wind. If someone went to court and told three different versions of his story, how strong an "alibi" would that be? What would the prosecution do with that story? He can't seem to recall exactly where or under what circumstances he saw KQ.

In about 2007, AP told my colleague Jim Dean that, "If that clown from New Jersey is right, he'll sure make an ass out of me." So does AP have a vested interest in my being wrong? There seems to be something in it for him from (at the very least) an ego standpoint. Anyone who says that AP is just an objective observer with no axe to grind needs to rethink that assessment.

Mike

Welsh Chappie wrote: As for how Armond could get halfway around the block and back and stopping to chat to Qvale etc without Fouke arriving at, or passing, Armond at Maple or on Jackson? No idea. I have wondered if the 'two cops who pulled a goof' that Z refers to is not, as we all think, Fouke & Zelms, but actually Pelissetti and Peda. Fouke is adamant he did not stop Zodiac and speak to him but Zodiac is adamant two cops did.

Peda is an interesting part of this equation - what was he up to?

As for the first/second dispatch conundrum - well, I don't think your idea is entirely outlandish. Perhaps there really was a cover up of some kind. Would certainly explain the confusion.

Another possible explanation is that they somehow managed to send out the first, erroneous description twice - instead of the new, corrected one. I don't know whether this is any more likely that your suggestion, though.

Whatever the case may be it's perhaps wise to keep in mind that these officers did what they did (or neglected to do so, as the case may be) while under the impression that the murder was just a routine job, a cab mugging gone wrong. They may not have been on the top of their game, so to speak - and when it soon after transpired that they were dealing with the Zodiac, well...I suppose it's possible that they had an interest in keeping anything blatantly negligent under wraps.

mike_r wrote:Hi-

Pelissetti did not go all the way around the block and back before encountering Fouke. Fouke pulled up to Cherry/Jackson as AP was slowly making his way up Cherry after speaking to the kids and before he got to Jackson. The timing demands that it can't be any other way. Otherwise, it took Fouke about twenty minutes to get there if you allow AP to walk one circuit of the block and to be starting another.

Precisely - that's what I've been thinking too.

"Pelissetti did not go all the way around the block and back before encountering Fouke. Fouke pulled up to Cherry/Jackson as AP was slowly making his way up Cherry after speaking to the kids and before he got to Jackson. The timing demands that it can't be any other way."

Well even in this chronology, Don Fouke should still have heard the amended update put out by Armond Pelissetti. Don claims that the first he heard of this new updated information was from A.P in person as he pulled up alongside him of Cherry. Someone once said a possible explanation was that Armond P had given the amended 'White Male' description to dispatch/colleagues at the station on a different radio frequency because back then patrol cars could not radio each other car to car. I was told that if Car A wanted to contact car B, Car A would need to radio the station and tell them, and they in turn would get their dispatcher to alert Car B that Car A needs backup. While this scenario would explain why Fouke never heard the update, I just can't see it being true even for 1969. (But, I was neither around in that era to know how it worked, nor am I American so if someone knows if the above is accurate or completely untrue, please do let me know.)

"Pelissetti told a guy (conversation was recorded accidentally) that he first saw KQ in his own front yard. That is much different from seeing him either standing or walking on Maple. Why doesn't AP say he walked all the way east one half block past Maple on the DVD? He never placed himself that far east before."

Yes, good point. But did Armond ever specifically say in that conversation that Kjell was standing in 'HIS front yard', or did he use a more general 'A front Yard?' The most logical and likely conclusion is that if he's stood on a property drive way then that driveway is going to be the one leading to his own home but A.P says the encounter happened at Maple (I know what your going to say: "If he lied about him being out on the street and having a dog, then it's going to be plausible, even more likely, to say the encounter happened elsewhere.)
If Kjell was standing on his own front yard then everthing Armond states about his encounter with him is false...

"I turned to the right and saw a man walking his dog..." Well Kjell's home and the direction A.P was waking in would mean that he'd have to look to the left, not the right, to see him.

I'm totally with you Mike on the point of why wouldn't A.P just say he went a few yards past Maple Intersection and stated the truth, something like: "I got all the way down to the next corner which was Maple. I looked left toward the Presidio and saw nothing as it was much darker there, turned to the right looking up Maple St hill and again saw nobody. I then continued on Jackson Street on the left side of the street on the sidewalk after passing Maple and shortly thereafter I saw something in my Peripheral vision. I looked to the left and at this moment noticed a White Male standing on the driveway of a property. I spoke with this man, who had absolutely no blood on his clothing, and asked him had anyone gone by in the past several minutes and he responded 'No"

It doesn't make sense for A.P to lie for no reason about where the man was actually located and invent a phantom dog to go with it. If your claims are true Mike regarding what A.P said actually happened and where Kjell was etc then unless Armond just likes to make sh*t up about crime scene's and their witnesses, it doesn't make sense. I personally believe your claims that this is what A.P said over the phone in confidence and then someone accidentally pressed 'record' on the tape machine that just happened to be right next to the phones receiver thus capturing the conversation on tape. His being recorded on tape giving a contradictory account to that of his long-time mainstream claim means, in a nutshell, He's been caught lying. This is why he now refers to your with such affection as 'that Clown from New Jersey.' I personally wouldn't be able to help myself if he said that or similar of me, and I'd just have to reply with "Armond you got caught out lying about what you have always claimed happened that night and the lie was exposed because you chose to tell an acquaintance, on a purely confidential basis, that you lied about what you saw that night and you thought that the best way to do this would be over the phone.... And you are calling me The Clown?"

See its bad enough with Graysmith and some other people reporting the facts of the case incorrectly, but now we have to be concerned with the official sources and investigators. I mean we could have had a thread with a huge debate about the breed of dog Kjell was walking that night. 89 pages on a thread full of posts with 23 people claiming it was most certainly a pug, and 17 others demanding it was, without a doubt, a Doberman. Then we'll find out that the dog had a unique and very specific breed, one of which we rarely ever come across called 'Phantom.'