One Man and His Dog.

[Norse]

Indeed - it was my post BayArea quoted, not Welsh's.

I wasn't trying to imply or suggest anything by my comment - it was an honest question. I can't remember where I came across this story, it's as simple as that. It was on one of the Zodiac boards, though, and thus I asked whether anyone here remembers the story and possibly where it may have appeared.

I know KQ wasn't known as Mr X in 1969. I was referring to the fact that the incident in question (a guy was picked up and brought to the crime scene for identification) was mentioned in a "Mr X" thread on one of the Zodiac boards. I thought that was pretty obvious.

[Norse]

I won't post links directly to other forums but I had a brief look just now at the "Mr X" threads on Voigt's board and on Butterfield's site. I noticed several mentions of the incident in question (again: a man was supposedly picked up on the night of the murder and brought to Wash./Cherry to be identified by one of the teens who witnessed Z leaving the cab) but no specific reference to where this information actually stems from.

It is the latter - where this originates from - I want to know. As mentioned above I believe there's something here which warrants further scrutiny regardless of what one may think of any particular theory or P.O.I.

[Bayarea60s]

Norse Stated....

"- it was my post BayArea quoted, not Welsh's.

I wasn't trying to imply or suggest anything by my comment - it was an honest question. I can't remember where I came across this story, it's as simple as that. It was on one of the Zodiac boards, though, and thus I asked whether anyone here remembers the story and possibly where it may have appeared.

I know KQ wasn't known as Mr X in 1969. I was referring to the fact that the incident in question (a guy was picked up and brought to the crime scene for identification) was mentioned in a "Mr X" thread on one of the Zodiac boards. I thought that was pretty obvious."

My apologies to you for the confusion on my part, and quoting it as something that Welsh said, when you stated it.

Well this is what I read from you and that I replied to Welsh on....Your statement ,
"I can't remember where I came across this, but I do remember that it was in connection with Mr. X (as he was known then)."
That's what you wrote, it wasn't a question. certainly wasn't obvious. It was just a statement by you., followed by a question. And I replied to your statement and the ( ) part as a mis-statement by you. he wasn't known as Mr. X back then. And explained its origin.
But my apologies for the confusion.

[Bayarea60s]

Norse Stated....

" won't post links directly to other forums but I had a brief look just now at the "Mr X" threads on Voigt's board and on Butterfield's site. I noticed several mentions of the incident in question (again: a man was supposedly picked up on the night of the murder and brought to Wash./Cherry to be identified by one of the teens who witnessed Z leaving the cab) but no specific reference to where this information actually stems from.
It is the latter - where this originates from - I want to know. As mentioned above I believe there's something here which warrants further scrutiny regardless of what one may think of any particular theory or P.O.I."

You won't find any proof that this took place on the night of the crime, not as far as I've ever read. what you usually get is a report from someone of a phone conversation, where someone told someone something. You need to go to the Mr. X thread, which I'm sure you have, read it all if you wish, but I don't think you'll find what you're looking for. If the RO's weren't involved, and we have their report, no reason for them to omit this major event happening, I'm sure promotions would be in line for cops solving a murder without detective involvement. Then we're left with the detectives, and they don't share downstream, and for good reason.

[Bayarea60s]

Welsh Chappie Stated......

"BayArea60's you say:

Welsh Chappie said: " I'm referring to a guy who was apparently picked up and brought to the crime scene so that one of the kids across the street could take a closer look at him."

Yes I did didn't I except for the fact the I didn't. Mis-quoting me is one thing, mis-identifying is another. Scroll up and you'll find that was not my comment, but Norse's in response to me asking which witness they were referring to.

I don't mind someone having issue with, or arguing against, something I have proposed, I just request that it be something I did actually say lol."

My apologies for mis quoting you on that attached message. My mistake certainly wasn't done on purpose. My error.

I'm not arguing with you at all simply taking your statements and pointing out the numerous flaws in your theory. And so far you've proposed nothing of fact to support your statements. Let alone the fact, that you have produced nothing to support your statement that AP is a liar. Now I might misquote someone from an attached message, might even do it again some day. but you'll never find me call you or anyone else a liar, unless I've presented solid facts to support such a statement.. Isn't that what a liar is? Cause if I call another a liar and have no support of that statement then that would make me the liar.

Now we have police reports signed by 3 cops that evening, and no where does it state anything about the RO's involvement of going out and investigating the crime, transporting anybody anywhere. You realize if an ID was done the way it has been suggested, you would destroy your eyewitness, they could never be used again. Cops know that. It would be big time cudos for cops to have solved the case before the detectives even get on the scene. Guaranteed they'd mention it when filing their report.

[Bayarea60s]

Welsh Stated.....

"Why take him back to the crime scene?"

Well A.P knew the kids had seen the suspect at the cab and A.P must have asked what he looked like because he found out he was a white guy. So the obvious motive for doing this would be so see if the witness could positively identify him as the suspect. But Maybe it was the other way around and the suspect wasn't taken to where the kid was, but the kid taken in a patrol can to where officer had stopped suspect. Maybe Armond radioed for someone at the scene to ask them to bring one of the witnesses around the block to Jax & Mple to observe a suspect he had stopped on the street.

And maybe Armand wasn't involved at all. Just relayed what he knew to Toschi and Armstrong? Certainly would fit more into their sandbox then Armand's. And they would want to set up a line up to make it all legal.

And so why would AP, Kiel and Peda not have this mentioned in their report? Oh to keep it on the hush hush> Really? It's a police report, only the police had access, already on the hush hush. Don't think Toschi and Armstrong would find out when they spoke with the kid. Don't think promotions would be in order for AP? Oh that's right cause one of the unproven stories given to support this is AP MIGHT have had a relationship with Kjell, which means he MIGHT NOT have as well. and AP might have wanted to get a used car deal. And all of SFPD would just go along cause Armand has a car deal going on.


"But BayArea60's has decided: "To You it makes sense, cause you've already created your own theory."

And I'll stand by that cause you've presented nothing. It's what this theory has always been based on. And to support this theory further you now call cops liars. I don't care who you are, you best have more than a theory. A lie is a falsehood told in light of known facts. You present NO facts, and call a man a liar. Something wrong here Welsh. And it ain't me.

*Sigh.* I'll say it one final time, the FBI report states unequivocally that eight year old witness "IDENTIFIED" _____ as possible suspect. Now Bay, the English definition of the word Identify, as you well know, is: To establish or indicate who or what (someone or something) is." The word identify is also synonymous with: Single out, point out, knowing by sight, distinguish and discern.
Now unless your going to argue that the FBI document reads: "Eight year old witness in murder of cab driver identified *Nobody* as possible subject in the matter" then he must have identified somebody and the only way to identify someone or something is to physically see them or it after the fact and say "Yes, that him" or "Yes, that's the wallet I lost last week" for example.

If this eight year old had told police that he thought he recognised the man that he saw as being so-and-so who, lets say for example, worked with his father, then the FBI report would say so, it would probably say something like "Witness thought he recognised suspect as so-and-so" or "Witness was sure that responsible is so-and-so from such and such." When you give a name to police your doing just that, supplying information about someone you suspect. When a Police FBI report declares that you have 'identified' so-and-so, then that can only mean that you pointed him out specifically as the person responsible. "

Sigh is right Welsh. ..To use your latest reasoning above, don't you think then that FBI file would say, "SFPD advised 8 year old witness in murder of cab driver ID'd______________ on the night of the murder, as possible subject in this matter"??? And wouldn't the FBI ask SFPD, well if you already have the killer ID'd, why in the hell are you bothering us? but the bottom line is whoever this kid ID'd obviously wasn't Z, whether it's Kjell or John Doe

"Lastly, do you think - given what you suggest here - that the 8yr old witness was in fact one of the kids across the street?"

Yes and No... :-/

Yes because they are the only witnesses that appear in the official police reports as seeing the crime and suspect.

Could be also that the official police reports you cite were written that night. I guess it could be that the 8 year wasn't one who lived at the house on Washington, but lived in some other house was looking out his window saw a guy wiping down a cab and walking away and didn't think about it until the next day. I don't think that's the case, but really i don't KNOW. I would then have to question why the 3 kids weren't involved. and I do question why was only one kid involved when there were 3? Did the other 2 kids really not see anything? Shouldn't the other 2 been involved in ID'ing Z? I would think so, but they're not mentioned. Maybe they never saw his face. so then there was really only 1 witness, not 3. the other 2 are useless if they can't ID suspect, so why even mention them? I don't know....
I think the 8 year old could be a typo, a mis-communication by someone along the way, before it's typed on the FBI Report.

No because this witness is Eight. The three witnesses who are listed in the report also have their ages listed, and none of them were eight."

"Maybe he was at the house with the three teens but police felt that, given the nature of the crime and the fact he'd identified someone, it would be safer and in the childs interest not to list him in the official report because, after all, he was only Eight. But I really don't know."

Maybe, which also means maybe not....Child could just be ID'd as witness and age not mentioned if they were concerned about it. Only those involved in the investigation are going to see the details. Again the report isn't being released to the public at all. Only for LE....And only for those who were there, no one in LE would have any input, so they wouldn't be privy to report if they're not involved.

[Norse]

Bayarea60s: Thanks for your answer - and no need to apologize! I contributed more than a little to the confusion myself: when I said "as he was known back then" I was referring to the name he went by on the message boards before his death - not "back then" as in "at the time of the Stine murder". You're right - it wasn't obvious and I apologize if I sounded a bit...short there!

Anyway, I have browsed through a lot of "Mr X" threads now and I still haven't found anything resembling a proper source for the information. What I do recall is that the first time I came across this story it was also stated (by someone - a member of one of the Z boards) that Pelissetti had claimed that the person who was brought to the crime scene was not Mr X, a.k.a. KQ. I think - possibly - that this claim was made in an interview with M. Butterfield (who did interview Pelissetti at one point, I know that much).

What we know for a fact is that a witness identified someone either that night or afterwards. To me it seems likely that whoever this kid (whether 8yrs old or not) identified would have been a local man, someone the kid knew from around the neighborhood. In other words someone who could have been picked up and brought to the scene for identification.

The most plausible origin of the story in question, then, would seem to be this: that the man identified by the "8yr old witness" was the same one who was (according to the story) picked up and driven to the crime scene. If this is NOT the case we're dealing with two possibilities: a) there were two separate identifications (or attempts at such), one involving the kid mentioned in the FBI document and another one we don't have any proper information about - and b) the story is fiction, nobody was picked up and driven to the scene; there was an identification (namely the one involving the "8yr old witness") but we know nothing about the details, i.e. we don't know if the man in question was picked up and driven to the scene or identified in a completely different manner.

[Welsh Chappie]

Another inconsistency:


A.P states that "We (Himself and Officer Frank Peda) responded to a radio call, told us that a cab driver was being robbed and/or possibly assaulted at the corner of Cherry & Washington Streets in Pacific Heights." That sounds accurate to me, and i''ll say why later.

D.F states that: "We (He and Zelms)]were patrolling the Eastern side of the Richmond District going Northbound on Presidio Avenue. We had just passed Washington Street when a broadcast came in of a shooting at Cherry & Washington Street's."

Question: Who's broadcast is Don hearing and responding to here? It can't be the same one as A.P because he responds to a cab driver being robbed and possibly assaulted. The witnesses who called it in could not know the driver had been shot and report that at no time did they hear a gun shot fired. So who's broadcast is Don responding to, and how would they know there's a shooting involved? There's only one person that can know this information at this point, and that's the man at the scene, Armond Pelissetti.

Armond doesn't actually come out and state that upon checking Paul over that he discovered he'd been shot, but it's safe to assume that he does know this and here's why: The broadcast that Don Fouke responds to specifically states that there has been a shooting at Wash & Cherry streets, and the only person on the Planet who can know that at this point, other than Zodiac himself, is first responder Armond Pelissetti. So, given that it has to be Armond's radio call of a shooting that Don hears and responds to, how come he hears this bit, but not the amended broadcast that A.P would have probably given in the same message, that suspect is not Black, but White?

Armond says he checked Paul over and "was 99.9% certain he was dead" and then after doing this says "At this point I re-took the suspect description, and that's when I was told it was a white guy. I couldn't get to the radio fast enough to let every one else know." So, Armond is saying that he first checked Stine, realised that he'd been shot and was almost certain he was dead, and then discovers after this that the offender is white. So the logical thing to assume here is that because Armond must be the person broadcasting the fact that it's a shooting that's occurred at Wash and Cherry, then surely in this same broadcast he must also give his amended 'White Male, not Black' update.

When Don gets the broadcast of a shooting (which must be Armond himself because as stated, he is the only man in a position to know this) he himself says he was going North on Presidio Avenue and had just passed Washington Street. He states that in response to this: "We turned West on Jackson Street. As we Approached Maple Street, I noticed on the North side of the street, A White Male Adult...." and goes on to give an accurate description of him before declaring "The initial radio description of the suspect was that of a Black Male, 5 '10, or something like that. Seeing that it was a White Male, in an affluent neighbourhood - walking along the street, we didn't think it was the suspect so we proceeded to the next block which was Cherry."

How can Don hear and respond to Armond's radio call that this is actually a shooting, but not hear Armonds update that the guy that did it was White?

[Bayarea60s]

Welsh Stated....

" A.P states that "We (Himself and Officer Frank Peda) responded to a radio call, told us that a cab driver was being robbed and/or possibly assaulted at the corner of Cherry & Washington Streets in Pacific Heights." That sounds accurate to me, and i''ll say why later.

D.F states that: "We (He and Zelms)]were patrolling the Eastern side of the Richmond District going Northbound on Presidio Avenue. We had just passed Washington Street when a broadcast came in of a shooting at Cherry & Washington Street's."

Question: Who's broadcast is Don hearing and responding to here? It can't be the same one as A.P because he responds to a cab driver being robbed and possibly assaulted. The witnesses who called it in could not know the driver had been shot and report that at no time did they hear a gun shot fired. So who's broadcast is Don responding to, and how would they know there's a shooting involved? There's only one person that can know this information at this point, and that's the man at the scene, Armond Pelissetti.

Armond doesn't actually come out and state that upon checking Paul over that he discovered he'd been shot, but it's safe to assume that he does know this and here's why: The broadcast that Don Fouke responds to specifically states that there has been a shooting at Wash & Cherry streets, and the only person on the Planet who can know that at this point, other than Zodiac himself, is first responder Armond Pelissetti. So, given that it has to be Armond's radio call of a shooting that Don hears and responds to, how come he hears this bit, but not the amended broadcast that A.P would have probably given in the same message, that suspect is not Black, but White?

Armond says he checked Paul over and "was 99.9% certain he was dead" and then after doing this says "At this point I re-took the suspect description, and that's when I was told it was a white guy. I couldn't get to the radio fast enough to let every one else know." So, Armond is saying that he first checked Stine, realised that he'd been shot and was almost certain he was dead, and then discovers after this that the offender is white. So the logical thing to assume here is that because Armond must be the person broadcasting the fact that it's a shooting that's occurred at Wash and Cherry, then surely in this same broadcast he must also give his amended 'White Male, not Black' update."

You know the last time I watched the video that word jumped out at me too. When Fouke's says "shooting". All the times I'd watched it before that word passed me by, but this time caught my attention. Before hearing Armand say "I couldn't get to that radio fast enough", I was always suspicious of that statement because I thought Don was responding to a robbery call, and I was thinking that Armand made that statement but didn't really say he did that. I don't know if Don is just stating literally he did get a call of a shooting (that's how I take it), or he was only saying he was responding to the shooting. But if Don responded to a shooting as he states, then you would think along with the "shooting would have been the WMA update vs. the original BMA". Did Don just miss that? Sounds like Armand did call it in before he went down Cherry. This is what I hate, both are still with us. I feel they've never been effectively interviewed.
Timing wise this would clear up a lot for me. AP makes the call, Fouke's hears it, responds and they meet up at Cherry/Jackson a minute later. And if it happened that way then what AP stated in the video about going first to Maple/Jackson and then when he gets back to Cherry/Jackson is when he meets up with Fouke. Well that would be discounted for sure, AP couldn't do that in 1 minute, and 1 minute is about all the time he would have.

When Don gets the broadcast of a shooting (which must be Armond himself because as stated, he is the only man in a position to know this) he himself says he was going North on Presidio Avenue and had just passed Washington Street. He states that in response to this: "We turned West on Jackson Street. As we Approached Maple Street, I noticed on the North side of the street, A White Male Adult...." and goes on to give an accurate description of him before declaring "The initial radio description of the suspect was that of a Black Male, 5 '10, or something like that. Seeing that it was a White Male, in an affluent neighbourhood - walking along the street, we didn't think it was the suspect so we proceeded to the next block which was Cherry."

How can Don hear and respond to Armond's radio call that this is actually a shooting, but not hear Armonds update that the guy that did it was White?[/quote]

This is a very good question to ask Don. One that would be on my mind, being that he states he's responding to a shooting. Is it that Don heard the initial dispatch, that AP responds to, but it's not where Don and Eric are headed, not their normal beat, and when dispatch sends out Armand's call, Don just misses the race update. Very well could be. Armand wouldn't ever hear his message that he sent cause he'd be in pursuit of killer. Or it could be that dispatch again didn't send the race update. I find that hard to believe, but I guess that's a possibility. Or AP didin't include that part of the update, which I would think would be highly unlikely. Of all the Z cases, these 2 officers movements should long ago been ironed down without any doubts left. This is the easiest and most proveable area I think of all 4 cases, and yet here were are still with numerous questions.

[Norse]

It could be just an innocent mistake.

Fouke says "shooting" because when he made the statement he knew - of course - that it was in fact a case of murder. Easy enough mistake to make - it doesn't necessarily mean that he responded to a second, updated dispatch.

If Fouke responded only AFTER Pelissetti had radioed in the updated information we can't believe a word he - Fouke - says, now can we? His whole description/explanation of the Jackson St encounter goes right out the window.