One Man and His Dog.

[Welsh Chappie]

To summarize: Both Don Fouke and Armond Pelissetti lied about where they had encountered, and last seen, the suspect with Fouke claiming it was on Maple Street with suspect heading toward Presdido when it was actually on a driveway at the Maple Intersection and Armond Pelissetti claims it was also on Maple and introduces a dog to this situation when in reality there was no dog and he, like Fouke, did not encounter this man on Maple Street but did, in fact, encounter him on a driveway just as Don Fouke did. Don gives no name of the suspect but describes his clothing in remarkable detail. Pellissetti, however, does give us his name, Kjell Qvale. Now what are the odds that the two officers would both lie about where they saw a suspect, both saying they saw him on Maple when they both actually saw him on a driveway at Maple Street Intersection, and this be two different white male's both individually standing on a driveway at that location? Staggering odds I'd say.

To me, the individual seen by Armond and Don on a driveway was the same man; Kjell Qvale. Don Fouke described in vivid detail the suspects clothing, the Dark Blue Zipper Jacket with flap down collar, the Rust brown coloured pleated trousers with engineering type boots, tan in colour. Now if this is the same man here seen by Don that Armond would also encounter on the driveway, then it's Kjell Qvale and if it's Kjell Qvale, then he is wearing the aforementioned clothes and if he's wearing these clothes then he is, undoubtedly, the Zodiac because Bryan Hartnell described his attacker at Berryessa wearing A Navy blue Zipper Jacket with flap down Collar, brown pleated trousers and a footprint found at the scene at Berryessa suggested the suspect wore an engineering type boot - The Wingwalker. So if Kjell is the man Don saw, and it seems overwhelmingly likely that is was based on Pelissetti seeing him on the same driveway that night, then Qvale is not only at the scene in Pacific Heights, but he is there wearing the exact same clothing as the Zodiac killer who struck in Lake Berryessa two weeks previously and again just around the corner from where he is now in Pacific Heights. Either Kjell Qvale was the unluckiest man alive who just happened to be 100 yards away from a Zodiac Murder crime scene in Pacific Heights while wearing the exact same clothing that Zodiac wore two weeks previously in Lake Berryessa or.....It isn't one gigantic coincidence and Kjell isn't the poor, unlucky and innocent bystander who just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time wearing the wrong clothing, wrong as in 'exactly what Zodiac was know to wear', and it is, in actuality, because....Kjell is the Zodiac.

[Welsh Chappie]

Below is the Composite of the Berryessa suspect, then the composite believed to be based on Don Fouke description, followed by a photo of Kjell Qvale.

[mike_r]

Hi Chappie-

Well, that is quite a statement you are making. I've had the sense over the past few months given the tenor of your posts that you were heading at your own pace in this direction. In fact, I told my friend Jim that I felt you were slowly but surely being drawn to PH as the place where Z lived. However, I feel that if you are looking for the name on the doc to be that of KQ and that your entire thesis revolves only around that one fact, you may be disappointed. There are MANY reasons to believe your central thesis is correct (behavioral profile fits: one of the few people it does fit, my circumstantial case, etc.) but I'd caution you about crawling too far out on a limb with those FOIA request results lest someone cut off the branch you're on. Here is why:

The redaction in the date field is very long. KQ's birth date is from a month with a short name (not the shortest one, but close). So I am not holding out hope on that doc containing his name for that exact reason.

As for the statements that once SFPD realized that the man who killed Stine was Z, they should have read their own reports and re-interviewed everyone their officers had encountered that night (if only as witnesses to see if they may have seen something important without realizing it). My reaction is: Who is to say they did not? But even if they did, that does not mean that Z would have said anything incriminating. Pelissetti has said there is a report he wrote on his encounter that is in the files. I feel that there is but nobody has ever shown it to me or even admitted its existence. Who know what is in the files? Maybe they interviewed and re-interviewed lots of people. At that time, I doubt anyone could have imagined that Z lived in PH and was made of money. I don't believe that was happening in 1969. That is because of the old "profile" they used until Walter came along (and which some people still insist on using today, unless they are writing their own "profile" of Z without any background or knowledge of profiling other than maybe watching Criminal Minds, LOL).

Mike

[capricorn]

Thanks Welsh Chappie.

Has there been a map posted of these locations and movements and if so could you please refer or post a link? If not, could you make one? Thanks in advance and sorry for being so dense but it is too time consuming to go back and forth between all the sites and links searching for this.

I don't know about others, but have a hard time forming a complete picture of this in my mind.

Also, did this Mr. Qvale move after the Stine murder? How long had he lived there? Don't you think it is kind of strange that he'd decide to do something like this practically in his own driveway or front yard when he'd be easily recognized by a neighbor either walking or driving by?

I also wonder how reliable the eight-year old (IIRC) witness was who stated she thought she recognized the man. Where are these witnesses today?

[Norse]

Thanks Welsh Chappie.

Has there been a map posted of these locations and movements and if so could you please refer or post a link? If not, could you make one? Thanks in advance and sorry for being so dense but it is too time consuming to go back and forth between all the sites and links searching for this.

I don't know about others, but have a hard time forming a complete picture of this in my mind.

Also, did this Mr. Qvale move after the Stine murder? How long had he lived there? Don't you think it is kind of strange that he'd decide to do something like this practically in his own driveway or front yard when he'd be easily recognized by a neighbor either walking or driving by?

I also wonder how reliable the eight-year old (IIRC) witness was who stated she thought she recognized the man. Where are these witnesses today?

Certainly a good question. If we assume that KQ was the Zodiac, however, we must also accept that his actions weren't those of a "normal" serial killer (contradiction in terms, I suppose, but there you go). It must have been some kind of twisted game to him - part of the thrill, I would think, was to see whether he could actually get away with it. Killing someone practically in his own back yard might have been the ultimate challenge for him.

As for being observed - well, if Q is Z he WAS observed, by several witnesses who would in all likelihood have seen him before AND by the police. Could he have coldly calculated that nobody in his right mind would suspect him, of all people - unless he was literally caught with blood on his hands? It's possible. To me both Pelissetti and the SFPD in general don't seem to have paid much attention to "dog walker" at all. Which is strange in retrospect. But if they knew exactly who he was - a respected businessman, a fairly high-profile guy - that might explain it. It was unthinkable he could be involved.

[Norse]

This is a general observation more than anything - but what Welsh Chappie says above about Z wearing two layers of clothing is something I've thought about several times.

Mageau describes Z as a big guy, clearly in the sense that he was heavy (nothing indicates that he was particularly tall), but he emphasizes that he wasn't flabby. It's possible to interpret what he says as the description of someone who was muscular - but that isn't quite the impression I get from what M says either. If his attacker had been muscular, pure and simple, the most natural description would be...just that. What Mageau says suggests to me someone who was bulky but not flabby - whatever that may mean.

Hartnell describes Z as wearing unshapely clothes. He speaks of a possible beer gut or something similar, but says that this impression may have been created by the shape of his clothing. He compares Z to the interviewer (who is wearing a suit) and implies that determining the latter's weight/shape is easy (because he's wearing a suit) whereas doing the same for Z is difficult because of the unshapely, baggy clothes he had on.

Now, both these statements (especially Hartnell's) could suggest that Z was wearing multiple layers of clothes or even padding of some sort in order to appear heavier than he actually was. I'm not saying it positively does - this is tenuous stuff, I realize that. But it's interesting to note that the SF composite, generally regarded as the most accurate one, shows a face that appears to be oddly lean for a heavy-set guy.

Just a thought - I don't think there's necessarily anything to it.

[mike_r]

Hi-

I have always wondered why people have assumed that Z had to be "barrel chested," overweight, etc. When you decide to wear a disguise when killing someone, the last thing you want to do is use some sort of heavy makeup on your face. Why? Because if you are approached by the police and spoken to, as Z almost was that night, it will appear very suspicious to them if they notice that you have somehow disguised your face. But it is easy to disguise your build. If you wear a heavy parka with several sweaters under it and, if you are stopped by the police and they ask why you are dressed that way, you simply say that you are susceptible to the cold of an October night, who could say that you were lying and that you are not prone to being cold? A few sweaters under the parka would make you look "barrel chested," even if you are not! And forty years later they'd say, "So and so can't be Z because he was not barrel chested!"

BTW, the one person who cold speak to this is Mike Mageau, given how he was dressed on the night of the shooting! He was apparently trying to make himself look bigger (unless you believe he didn't like the cold of the 4th of July!)

Again, the way you solve a case is to develop a profile and find someone who fits it. Then you build a circumstantial case that shows that the story of the suspect tells the story of the crimes.

Mike

[morf13]

When you go down the road of.... "well maybe he wore a disguise, a fat suit, etc", where does it end, anybody could be zodiac. Why couldnt Z simply have been as was described, a stocky to heavy man? Mageau described Z as having a large face(had a light in his face so i dont put alot of stock in his account), Z at Berryessa looked like he had a gut, was bulky, and Narlow & crew were confident Z was over 200 lbs, and finally, at the Stine scene, Z was described as stocky. I think it's clear, from all accounts, Zodiac was what he was described as.

[Tahoe27]

Again, the way you solve a case is to develop a profile and find someone who fits it. Then you build a circumstantial case that shows that the story of the suspect tells the story of the crimes.

Mike

What if that profile is completely wrong?

I think this statement is what allows SO many to flaunt their POI's. Please don't take this as a personal jab at you Mike...it's just there are so many who post on these message boards who feel they have relevant circumstantial evidence and their guy fits a profile. I just don't think that works any more. With this case at least.

--In regards to Mike Mageau, he saw Zodiac in a T-shirt. I don't question Zodiac's build when it comes to Mike M's description.

[morf13]

Again, the way you solve a case is to develop a profile and find someone who fits it. Then you build a circumstantial case that shows that the story of the suspect tells the story of the crimes.

Mike

What if that profile is completely wrong?

I think this statement is what allows SO many to flaunt their POI's. Please don't take this as a personal jab at you Mike...it's just there are so many who post on these message boards who feel they have relevant circumstantial evidence and their guy fits a profile. I just don't think that works any more. With this case at least.

--In regards to Mike Mageau, he saw Zodiac in a T-shirt. I don't question Zodiac's build when it comes to Mike M's description.

I agree with Tahoe, I think everybody with a POI thinks they have good circumstantial evidence. I do applaud Mike's effort and think it was a good idea to look thru newspapers for men frequently writing letters to the editor. I tried that myself, but never came up with any solid suspects. I don't think MrX was Zodiac, but like your strategy in finding him