Zodiackillersite.com

snooter wrote:do any pictures of Mr Y (brother of Mr X) exists circa 1965 on ward???

I've only seen one picture of Mr Y that I can recall and it has been posted here before - it's probably pre 1965, though.

EDIT Here: (top of the thread)

viewtopic.php?t=838&p=17218

By the way, unless I'm mistaken the Sahara (famous Las Vegas hotel and casino) was designed by another of KQ's brothers - a guy who also featured in several pre war Hollywood productions (minor roles, I'd guess).

Fascinating family, to say the least.

A man standing in front of his house with his dog is not suspicious at all. That is where that man lives. A very busy man like that, with many women chasing him probably wouldn't have been very interested in the Zodiac. He was a jet setter who couldn't possibly be expected to remember mundane things. To us a million dollars and a mansion is beyond are dreams. To that man it was nothing of any consequence.

Holmes201 wrote:A man standing in front of his house with his dog is not suspicious at all.

Really? What if he's whistling a G & S tune - and what if the dog is clearly of Welsh ancestry?

Seriously, though - I don't think anyone has ever claimed that the dog walking business is suspicious in and of itself.

Norse wrote:

Holmes201 wrote:A man standing in front of his house with his dog is not suspicious at all.

Really? What if he's whistling a G & S tune - and what if the dog is clearly of Welsh ancestry?

Seriously, though - I don't think anyone has ever claimed that the dog walking business is suspicious in and of itself.

The guy was whistling a G&S song. Somebody reported that? His dog was Welsh? How do we know this? Did the dog eat Red Dragon cheese, or eat Welsh rarebit. My little Yorkie eats Red Dragon cheese but she prefers Wensleydale with blueberries. Also, she will go after a nice cheese sandwich with Branston Pickle. I switched to Heinz Ploughmam, but she isn't fazed. Their are several Welsh breed dogs. What did the guy have?

Hi-

What with all those women chasing him around, you might think his wife might possibly have hired a PI to check up on him at some point.

People have dismissed the Peek-A-Boo Pennington connection to the Halloween card to be "irrelevant" because Pennington was active in the late 1940s and 1950s. There is one suspect who was both old enough and wealthy enough to have possibly come to Mr. Pennington's attention. It's the same guy who was out innocently walking his dog that night but told me he "should have been in England."

Mike

Three questions about X:

1. If X had envelopes pre-stamped by his secretary, was her DNA ever tested?

2. If DF saw Z immediately after the Stine shooting, as Z confirms in his letter, then why would X go out walking his dog immediately afterwards? Wouldn't he be concerned DF would get a second look at him and ask why he was there earlier, wearing different clothing, without the dog?

3. It sounds like X was in great shape, looked much younger than is age, was athletic, and lived to a ripe old age. How does that fit with the stooped, shuffling posture described by witnesses? I understand, he may have been disguising his gait after the Stines shooting, but there was no reason for him to do so after the Ferrin shooting, when he assumed there were no witnesses.

As always, thanks for everyones' time. I always assume my questions have been asked before & appreciate your patience.

Zodiac was extremely arrogant. He never even looked up at the kids who were watching him. We know this because when he left the crime scene, he walked up Cherry and walked down Jackson and didn't even try to hide when he saw a vehicle coming at him. He didn't know that they had seen him and he didn't care. When the cops slowed down and took at look at him, what did they do? They simply sped off! So his conclusion was that nobody had seen him (i.e., he hardly "fled" the scene in any hurry) and that therefore there was no reason why he could not shed his disguise (i.e., of wearing bulky clothing in order to look heavier than he actually was, which threw Pelissetti off) and going back on the street with his dog.

Please do some research on the DNA. I don't answer questions about it anymore. I've repeated myself way too many times. There are plenty of threads dedicated to it. I just can't keep saying the same thing over and over again. Look for references to my own research and that of Lyndon Lafferty with Alan Keel, the former director of SFPD's lab.

Mike

Marshall wrote:
2. If DF saw Z immediately after the Stine shooting, as Z confirms in his letter, then why would X go out walking his dog immediately afterwards? Wouldn't he be concerned DF would get a second look at him and ask why he was there earlier, wearing different clothing, without the dog?

Fair point, I'd say.

But there are some possible, if not counterpoints then at least semi-counterpoints, to be mentioned:

We don't know precisely what happened on the night. We don't know who appeared where, and was seen by whom, in exact detail. This general problem becomes more particularly acute if we're considering Mr X as a possible suspect (because he would have been heading home, right in the middle of his own neighborhood, if he was Z).

Let's say Mr X – as Z – comes walking down Jackson Street, and is passed (possibly even talked to) by Don Fouke. What's his conclusion? That he's safe. The cops clearly don't think he has anything to do with this. He moves on, goes home, removes his wind breaker and whatnot – and goes back out. Why? Because it's a kick. He wants to see the events unfold, he wants to involve himself in the action, like an arsonist who hangs around watching the fire he's started.

He takes his dog for a walk. Mr X told Mike that he had hardly ever walked a dog in his life, which seems exceedingly odd given the fact that he owned several dogs and that one of them is even mentioned as a particular favorite of his in a newspaper article (correct me if I'm wrong about the details here, I'm going by memory).

He is then accosted by Pelissetti, as he makes his way east on Jackson, and possibly south on Maple (Pelissetti's accounts of what happened that night are confusing, not to say contradictory). Well, Pelissetti, like Fouke before him, sees nothing suspicious about him, other than actually (unlike Fouke) recognizing him (as Mr X, the well known business man).

If Z was X, the fact that he ventured out again isn't a deal breaker, at any rate. He had already been seen – and possibly accosted – by the cops. He didn't know anything about the NMA/WMA mix-up.

Pelissetti claims that Fouke never encountered Z. Why's that? Trying to cover for his fellow officer? Or something else? Pelissetti encountered Mr X on the night – a fact he has divulged. What if he was sure the man Fouke saw was Mr X? What would he say then? He wouldn't say, on camera, that Fouke saw Mr X – because the latter is a big shot, one whom Pelissetti over the years has come to know better than he did at the time of Stine's murder.

So, Pelissetti won't mention him by name on camera, because dragging his name into this thing clearly isn't wise no matter how you look at it. He's happy to say, though, that he doesn't think Fouke actually encountered Z. Because that's what Pelissetti thinks: Fouke didn't. It was Mr X he rolled past, he was out and about at the time in question, and he obviously didn't have anything to do with the Stine murder.

Possible chain of events?

Yes, I suppose. But then again, even if the above is true, it doesn't mean Mr X is Z. It could be that Pelissetti's encounter with Mr X is the reason for his comment (about Fouke not having encountered Z), but nothing more. He, Pelissetti, did meet X (that is a fact). And he assumed Fouke had done so too (X being the only person around, and we're talking about a limited time frame).

mike_r wrote:Zodiac was extremely arrogant. He never even looked up at the kids who were watching him. We know this because when he left the crime scene, he walked up Cherry and walked down Jackson and didn't even try to hide when he saw a vehicle coming at him. He didn't know that they had seen him and he didn't care. When the cops slowed down and took at look at him, what did they do? They simply sped off! So his conclusion was that nobody had seen him (i.e., he hardly "fled" the scene in any hurry) and that therefore there was no reason why he could not shed his disguise (i.e., of wearing bulky clothing in order to look heavier than he actually was, which threw Pelissetti off) and going back on the street with his dog.

Mike

I agree with the level of arrogance, but after the shooting, everything he did was simply very smart. Far from endangering himself, not looking up at the kids to give them a better look at him, and not trying to hide or flee (as a guilty suspect would do,) maximized his chance for clean escape. Which makes me think, why in the world would he head right back out there and put his face in front of (potentially) that same cop and those same witnesses? I suppose extreme arrogance might explain it.

To me, a counter argument that makes some sense is:
It might confuse the witnesses or their potential testimony. As in, "Sure the kids can identify my client, but that's because they saw him an hour later when he was walking his dog, and they are just confusing the two distinct men..." Also, when Z wrote that he spoke to the officer, X did actually do just that. He spoke with Pelissetti, not Foulke.

Any thoughts on the posture of X's gait, as it relates to the eyewitness accounts of him walking with a stooped hitch?