Zodiackillersite.com

Hi-

Pelissetti said he saw KQ in KQ's own front yard. Period. This changes the timing of the sighting. If KQ had to go home, change, grab his dog and make it to Maple Street, that adds time to his side of the time line. But what AP is saying is that all KQ had to do is change, grab his dog and make it into his own front yard. This subtracts time from KQ's time line and adds it to AP's side.

The whole "I walked around the block too fast for KQ to be Z" notion is flimsy to begin with. It gets flimsier when you start changing the details like AP has.

Mike

Part of the problem here - as I see it - is that forty odd years later this case isn't a jig saw puzzle: it's not simply a matter of assembling a finite number of pieces - and bang, a complete picture will be revealed. It probably isn't a complete picture - all the pieces aren't there and we don't know which of the missing pieces that are truly significant. Perhaps it has no real bearing on the case that someone forgot A, got confused over the years about B - or even plain lied about C. But then again any of these missing pieces could be the very key to solving the thing.

One thing which strikes me as odd - regardless of what one thinks about him as a suspect - is that KQ wasn't more interesting to the cops than he apparently was. On the night this is understandable. This is 1969, the crime is a run-of-the-mill taxi mugging gone wrong, KQ is wealthy local citizen out walking his dog (or whatever he may have been doing). Clearly he isn't the guy - and if he says he saw nothing, that's the end of it.

But after it became clear that this was a Zodiac crime - a matter of national (even international) interest by and by - wasn't it a good idea to go see this guy again? He happens to be out and about right after the murder (this dog walker is one of very few people mentioned in any report who may have seen or heard something of interest). Anything he might have picked up - perhaps without even knowing he did pick it up, as it often the case with witnesses - could be of huge interest. But apparently he was never questioned again. It might mean nothing. But to me it's a loose end. KQ was a respectable, wealthy guy. Let's say the cops wasn't interested in him - and didn't bother to question him further - at least partly for this and not for any other good reason. In retrospect this strikes me as an obvious oversight. Doesn't matter if KQ is the Zodiac or not - it's still an oversight based on nothing beyond the fact that he happened to live in a nice part of town.

mike_r wrote:Hi-

Pelissetti said he saw KQ in KQ's own front yard. Period. This changes the timing of the sighting. If KQ had to go home, change, grab his dog and make it to Maple Street, that adds time to his side of the time line. But what AP is saying is that all KQ had to do is change, grab his dog and make it into his own front yard. This subtracts time from KQ's time line and adds it to AP's side.

The whole "I walked around the block too fast for KQ to be Z" notion is flimsy to begin with. It gets flimsier when you start changing the details like AP has.

Mike

If the sequence is this:

Pelissetti arrives at scene. He talks to the kids. He calls it in. In the meantime Fouke has been en route to the scene, driving along Jackson, where he encounters Zodiac. Shortly after this encounter Fouke meets Pelissetti somewhere on Cherry where the two of them has a brief conservation.

IF this is indeed the sequence, Zodiac could have made it to 3636 from 3712 Jackson St. He could have changed his clothes and picked up his dog and moved outside before Pelissetti managed to reach the point where he accosted KQ. The time allows for this. I'm not saying this is what happened. But the time does allow for it, as I see it. 3712 is the proverbial stone's throw from 3636. And Zodiac could have bolted as soon as Fouke was out of sight.

Exactamundo!

I think, based on what we know and have been told about regarding that night in Pacific Heights, it maybe time to ask the question "What are Fouke and Peissetti not telling us?"

Now I know the notion of two SFPD officers being complacent in a cover up of sorts and are holding back vital info is not realistic to most, but I assure you, I am not an avid conspiracy theorist myself. However, I believe the question of Fouke & Pelissetti covering for, of holding back information about, is a reasonable one for the following factual reasons:

Reason No 1.

Here is the comments as made by A.P & D.F in 2008:
A.P: "However, in subsequent conversations with him (Fouke), he told me that he did stop someone."
D.F: "We never stopped the man, we never talked to him. That is an emphatic statement by me. I wouldn't make the denial."

Armond and Don, for almost half a century now, have been going back and forth with "Yes you did" - "No we didn't" over whether Fouke told A.P he stopped someone that night.

Reason No 2.

For 39 years, from the night the incident happened, D.F has constantly and consistently stated that the suspect White Male was last observed by himself going 'North on Maple', which is obviously 'Into the Presidio.' Then, after 39 years.....A revelation! D.F now states in an interview for the documentary 'This is the Zodiac Speaking:'

"He (Zodiac) was putting his head down when he spotted the police car and then turned into the entrance way of a house. By entrance way, I mean stairs leading up that are concrete to a path that leads to a front door. Never saw him get to the top of the stairs. You want the address of that residence? 3712 Jackson Street. I never put it in the report, and I don't think I ever told anyone."

Well who would? Why would a police officer care if a suspect he had just passed, who matched the murderers general description, was making his merry way up some steps toward a house? Not at all important information. Let's now go waste an hour or two searching Julius Kahn and surrounding area and still not mention where the suspect was last seen even after the search fails to find him in the grounds of the Presidio.
It's ridiculous really. D.F was asked during the making of the Documentary by the director:

Dir: "Why didn't you put it in the report?"
D.F: I didn't think about it in the report because I assumed that he didn't live there.....an upper middle class neighbourhood, I don't know if he did live there or he didn't live there.....let the inspectors follow through".

Oh well if you assume something based on nothing then it must be true! Laughable, I think. Don says he assumed that the suspect didn't live in the neighbourhood but that he didn't "know" if he did live there or didn't and to let the inspectors follow through. And just how does he propose that they do this if he doesn't say tell them that's where the suspect went?

Reason No 3.

A.P claims he saw Kjell Qvale, the millionaire vehicle importer/seller, on Maple street hill and that Mr Qvale was accompanied by a 4 legged friend. He also states that when he went after the suspect in search of him along Cherry & then Jackson, he only went as far as Maple on Jackson St before turning back. But, Mike now tells us that this is only A.P's official account for the public to swallow and that, in fact, Kjell was not on Maple street, nor was he walking a dog, but was, in fact, standing alone in his own driveway which is past Maple Intersection on Jackson Street.
Why would he do this? Surely if a police officer is going to distort the facts, deliberately misrepresent the facts as he knows them to be, then he surely has to have a reason to do so? He has a lot to lose if caught out.

And finally, Reason 4.

A.P: "I was the first officer that responded on the scene...." Few comments later he talks about speaking with the three witnesses at the scene and he continues: "At that point I re-took the suspects description, and that's when I was told it was a white guy. I couldn't get to the radio fast enough to let everyone else know." Ok, no problem with that in itself, that would be the right thing to do. But, here again we have a situation that doesn't make sense at all.
Let's go with the version that says Don encountered A.P as A.P was heading down toward Jackson Street. Even in this scenario, if Armond broadcasts the update, then takes off down Cherry street (he walked, not ran remember) then Don and Eric must be somewhere near Maple Intersection as A.P gives the new suspect description because as A.P is part way along Cherry, Don comes around the Corner to encounter him there. So how doesn't Don know that the guy he's looking for is White? D.F even states that it wasn't until he pulled up and spoke to A.P on Cherry Street that he became aware that the description had been amended. Continuity doesn't allow for an update to be given by Armond, and then allow Fouke to claim he drove past the man without stopping because he was Caucasian because if A.P gave it over the radio a minute or two before seeing D.F on Cherry, then unless Don's radio was not working, he should know that the suspect is white long before needing to be told by Armond in person.

There is, it seems, outright lies being told on the part of at least one, but probably both, sworn officers about what the saw that night. Was Kjell on Maple, or his drive? Was White Male suspect (Very likely the Zodiac) last seen turning down Maple toward the Presidio grounds, or up some steps and toward a front door? Will we ever know why these two officers seem to be lying and misleading about what they saw that night? What are they not telling us?

Hi-

So I am not the only one who thinks AP may know more than he is telling us? How many suspects in cases get their alibis directly from the police? Not many, I bet. And Pelissetti's story keeps evolving...

Mike

I have had dogs and find it ridiculous to think that anyone, regardless of how crazy, could kill someone like Paul Stine in cold blood, and then rush to his residence, change clothes, get the dog (on a leash presumably) and then go back outside and proceed to walk the dog as if nothing unusual had happened!

This man walking his dog was simply doing just that. His mind could have been on any one of a million other things at the time and he wasn't paying strict attention to his surroundings since he would have had no reason to think anything had happened.

I recall a conversation I had with someone years ago about this crime or one similar to it. My friend suggested that perhaps Zodiac was wearing something like a plastic trash bag over his clothing and that is how it happened that there was no blood on his clothes.

capricorn wrote:I have had dogs and find it ridiculous to think that anyone, regardless of how crazy, could kill someone like Paul Stine in cold blood, and then rush to his residence, change clothes, get the dog (on a leash presumably) and then go back outside and proceed to walk the dog as if nothing unusual had happened!

This man walking his dog was simply doing just that. His mind could have been on any one of a million other things at the time and he wasn't paying strict attention to his surroundings since he would have had no reason to think anything had happened.

I recall a conversation I had with someone years ago about this crime or one similar to it. My friend suggested that perhaps Zodiac was wearing something like a plastic trash bag over his clothing and that is how it happened that there was no blood on his clothes.

Cap, the point Mike and I are making is that there was no man (Kjell Qvale) walking any dog at Maple Street, and that he was actually standing on a driveway alone when Armond sees him. Mike states that he has Armond Pelissetti on tape stating this as the actual place he encountered Kjell Qvale and not, as he has always said for the public record, on Maple St. I believe Mike when he states this because at any moment someone could demand proof of claim or A.P himself could bring litigation against anyone claiming that Armond said this if he hadn't. And while I cant speak for Mike personally, we seem to both be asking why would a police officer give false evidence regarding such a trivial issue such as where it was he encountered a prominent and successful businessman that night?

If Armond saw Kjell on his driveway, then why didn't he just say that from day one? It isn't Illegal to be on your own property. If Armond lied about where Kjell was then this begs the question did he see something about Kjell that alarmed him, or was there a second person that was with Kjell or that had just gone into Kjells?

Hey Mike, that's a thought. I wonder if the man seen standing in the driveway by Armond is the same man that Fouke just saw turning onto a driveway in that same location? You state that A.P does acknowledge that the man was standing in a driveway at Maple st, to which you point out that there are no driveways like this on Maple Street. But what if Armond means at Maple, as in at the intersection with Jackson? This surely puts Kjell Qvale on the same driveway that Don Fouke has just witnessed a white male turning onto. Come to think of it, it makes sense. Don is first to see the White Male who, seeing the patrol car approaching, turns to his left and onto a driveway. Don then goes around the corner onto Cherry St and Armond tells him 'No, the guy was white' and then Don tells Armond that he just saw a white guy seconds ago who turned into a driveway at the intersection of Maple. Armond, in response to this news, says he will go back to that area immediately to check the house and drive and tells Don and Eric to go around onto West Pacific and cover the back escape route. Then, as Armond arrives at the same driveway that Don described seeing the White male turning onto, he discovers that there is still someone standing there and that it isn't just anyone, but actually, it's Kjell Qvale.

A.P is probably telling the truth that Kjell was on a driveway at or near Maple street, the same one that Don sees the same suspect going onto. If it was Kjell that Don also saw that night, then the obvious question is, why is Kjell turning onto a driveway that isn't his when he sees police coming? He obviously doesn't live there and nor is he just visiting because it seems that after Don sees him turn onto this driveway, he is still there a short time later when Pelissetti encounters him 'Just standing there'. Don does say in the documentary that when A.P told him the guy was white and a brief description that Don replied to Armond with "Ohh, that was the suspect" regarding the man he'd just passed. Armond denies Don telling him this and says Don never told him he's seen anyone 'Black, White or any other colour.' But of course Armond is going to deny that because he isn't admitting that he saw the same man on the same drive as Don saw, and Don never admitted it either until 2008. Why are they both lying about encountering Kjell Qvale and where he was?

If it was Kjell Qvale that both seen by Fouke aswell as Pelissetti that night, then given that Zodiac wrote and said he spoke to officers that night and directed them uphill, then Kjell Qvale has to be The Zodiac!

When Zodiac writes " I said yes there was this man who was runnig by waving a gun & the cops peeled rubber + went around the corner as I directed them + I disappeared into the park a block + a half away never to be seen again" did he really mean "and I disappeared into my own house never to be seen again?

Thinking about it, everything points to Qvale about that night. Zodiac was almost certainly not in the Presidio when it was surrounded and searched with 7 dogs, an army of SFPD Officers and firetruck search lights and yet, he knew where the cop cars were parked along West Pacific so he had to be around that area somewhere. Kjell's home would be the perfect vantage point. Also, I have said countless times that, in my opinion, Zodiac was never heading for Julius Kahn or the Presidio because if he was, he have used the entrance at the top of Cherry Street because it offers the fastest, quickest escape into the Presidio and yet, Zodiac stays on the street. He is heading for a house, maybe?

When Zodiac announced 'FK, I'm Crackproof' was he implying he's a criminal genius who is simply too good for police, or is he suggesting that because of he is in society, he's off limits and crack proof because he knows they wouldn't try and come after such a prominent figure?

Finally, it's interesting that, after the Presidio Heights murder, Zodiac goes away and stops killing. People have always speculated how this could be as Serial Killers don't just stop and go away.

" My friend suggested that perhaps Zodiac was wearing something like a plastic trash bag over his clothing and that is how it happened that there was no blood on his clothes."

Well that's possible, but it's much easier to simply wear two pairs of trousers and two jackets and then, after killing Paul and getting the blood all over the outer layer of clothing, you simply switch the layers around so that now the blood stained/soaked trousers are hidden under the clean pair that you had on underneath for the journey to the scene.

This is going to be controversial no doubt but, I think Don & Armond have changed their stories and lied about that night (which is not in dispute because out of their own mouths have come differing accounts as to who and what they saw, where they saw it and when) and I think the reason they have is because they know very well that what they saw and what they know implicates one of the most prominent, successful, rich and powerful men in the Bay Area, Kjell Qvale.

I will put my house on it that, if successful, the pending FOIA request I have for the release of the person named by the eight year old as possibly being responsible for Paul Stine's murder will be Kjell Qvale.