1. Is it believed that Donald Fouke withheld the information about his sighting of the male on Jackson Street, until he was instructed to issue his memorandum.

Depends who you ask. And what you’re actually asking.

2 The SFPD were unaware of this sighting by Fouke immediately after the crime.

Extremely unlikely. Fouke told Pelissetti about it. Zelms was aware of it. My guess is that quite a lot of people would’ve been aware of it quickly enough.

3 Did Donald Fouke therefore keep this sighting under wraps for at least a week after the crime or a lot longer.

I don’t understand the question.

Look, why don’t you just post your find – or your observation, or your theory, in the appropriate section? Nobody has any definite answers to these questions as far as I’m aware of.

Facts:

Fouke encounters someone on Jackson. Realizes subject is perpetrator shortly after. Tells Pelissetti of encounter, but Pelissetti fails to mention it in his report. * Fouke’s partner that night, Zelms, also aware of encounter.

Some days later it becomes clear that perpetrator in Stine case is, in fact, Zodiac.

Almost a month later Zodiac taunts the SFPD in his "Death Machine" letter, and Fouke’s memo is produced shortly after, presumably because the department wants it on record that Z was lying (i.e. he did not talk to any police officers that night).

I don’t understand what it is you’re asking, specifically, in questions 1 and 3 above, but nobody knows, with absolute certainty, the exact circumstances of the memo.

* Which indicates that he didn’t consider the encounter important. Bear in mind, as always, that nobody knew Zodiac was involved at this point.

Well Norse it states this on the second page ‘#2 SUSPECT: WMA, in his early forties, 5’8", heavy build, reddish-blond, crew cut hair. wearing eyeglasses, dark brown trousers, dark (navy blue or black) "Parka" jacket, dark shoes. Suspect should have many blood stains on his person and clothing, suspect may also be in possession of the keys to the Yellow Cab, possibly has wallet belonging to the victim. Last seen walking north on Cherry Street, from Washington Street‘
It is signed by Pelissetti, but the description is a mixture from the 3 teenagers and Donald Fouke, especially describing a man in his ‘early forties’, yet the report also says ‘Last seen walking north on Cherry Street, from Washington Street.’ This cannot be true if Fouke’s description has been inserted into the October 12th police report.

I figured that was it, UKS.

And you’re right, it isn’t technically true: He wasn’t last seen walking north on Cherry. As far as we can reasonably conclude, he was last seen by Fouke, pretending to enter a residence on Jackson St.

The question is what this means.

1. Pelissetti is unaware of the encounter at the time of writing up the report. This is contradicted by Pelissetti’s own statements (in later interviews), where he talks about meeting up with Fouke subsequent to the encounter. So, if he didn’t know about the encounter back in ’69, his memory is playing some nasty tricks on him in later years. And ditto for Donald Fouke – and his memory.

2. Pelissetti doesn’t consider the encounter important. Fouke’s conclusion, it should be noted, was that the subject made his way into the park after having pretended to enter the residence in question. This is of some importance: As Fouke saw it (which is what he would have told Pelissetti as well), the Jackson St encounter added nothing of interest in terms of where the man was headed – which was the park. Walked north on Cherry St, seemingly headed for the park. And that is where he was headed too – according to Fouke’s reasoning.

Is it strikingly odd that Pelissetti fails to mention this encounter in his report? I don’t know. Perhaps. Odd, perhaps – but not strikingly so. This wasn’t a Zodiac murder when he wrote his report – that can’t be repeated often enough.

What’s the alternative? He’s lying? They’re both lying? But why? And to what end?

Pelissetti was adamant in the TITZS interview that Fouke did not mention the encounter at the time. Fouke, however, gives the impression that he did with, "I then used a slang term and said, ‘Oh! That was the suspect.’"

http://unazod.com/odd/transcript.htm

Pelissetti was adamant in the TITZS interview that Fouke did not mention the encounter at the time.

"At the time" in reference to the meeting at Cherry/Jackson, apparently – yes. He also says that Fouke told him later that he had encountered someone. Pelissetti is also on record stating a) that Fouke stopped the subject and asked him if he had seen anybody (which Fouke denies, obviously) and b) that he (Pelissetti) does not believe the man Fouke encountered was Zodiac. His reasoning being that the killer would have been bloody – and that Fouke would not have failed to notice this.

But, yes – let’s say Fouke didn’t mention the encounter until after Pelissetti wrote up his report. What’s the significance? None of them considered it greatly important at the time? Well, it wasn’t. They were looking for a run-of-the-mill cabbie killer, not the Zodiac.

To make things even more interesting (if that’s the word), what Pelissetti says in general about what he did, and when, that night, doesn’t make sense. Chronologically, he apparently talked to the infamous dog walker before he met up with Fouke. If what Pelissetti says is accurate, it has radical consequences for everything we think we know about the time line that night. It means Fouke must have been driving insanely slow, for starters.

The main question here, however, is this: Does it actually mean anything?

They’re not consistent. They don’t recall everything with absolute clarity. So what?

" let’s say Fouke didn’t mention the encounter until after Pelissetti wrote up his report."
But as we know Norse that cannot be true, because where did the ‘early forties’ description come from, it certainly wasn’t the teenagers.

Yes, that’s a good point.

I agree that there are several indicators pointing to Pelissetti having talked to Fouke about the encounter prior to writing up that report. And I have long entertained the idea that the description in the report is – actually – a combination of the kids’ input and that of Fouke. The latter makes some sense. But we simply don’t know if it is the case.

And my question is – again – does it really matter? Is there anything here which is truly fishy, for lack of a better word? I mean, that is what we’re really talking about, isn’t it? Someone is lying, to cover up something – right?

Because, if that is NOT what we’re talking about – then, well, it’s very simple: They don’t remember precisely what happened. That’s it.

Let’s take the particular point you raise above:

Pelissetti’s report includes a description partly based on Fouke’s input (this isn’t a fact, but a reasonable enough theory).

Pelissetti’s report does not include any mention of the Jackson St encounter.

Is this fishy? Or is it just…what? A case of Pelissetti writing up a non-perfect report?

EDIT

Here one may also add that Pelissetti’s report doesn’t include any details pertaining to his own pursuit of/search for the perpetrator: The fact that he followed him north on Cherry, turned east on Jackson, headed down to Maple, where he encountered a man walking his dog – none of this is mentioned in the report.

One has to presume that these details were recorded, subsequently, in a different report or reports – belonging to the presumably vast case material that has never been made public.

"And my question is – again – does it really matter?" Not particularly Norse, it isn’t going to solve the case, but it’s always nice to have the true events in any crime, before moving on. Sometimes we can show the true events to new Zodiac enthusiasts before they pick up some of the myths and legends that have perpetuated. I am sure you agree. Anyway I haven’t got a favourite suspect to pursue, so I have to fill up my time with something.

Question is, why has the official Zodiac sketch been the one shown here with two different faces, and hairlines & an age description of 25-45? I think this is due to multiple witnesses of Zodiac that night. Also, we know about the Kids in the window seeing Z, and Fouke, but what about other witnesses we don’t know about? Remember that one witness that was a kid who welsh chappie had found in a report? Didn’t we determine this was not one of the kids in the window?

That’s correct, the 8 year old describing likely ‘Robert’ in the redacted section of the FBI report. Speculated to be Robert Hale West.

Yes…the 8 year old. I wish that could be cleared up once and for all.

The thing about the 8 year old is that it seems unlikely that he or she saw someone unrelated: He or she observed someone leave the crime scene. That’s what it looks like.

Which is pretty big, you could say. If true, this kid observed Z – and presumably pretty well too, since he or she was able to identify him as NN. The latter could be of no interest whatsoever (the kid was wrong, simply put) – but the fact that he or she managed to get a relatively good look at him, is nevertheless potentially very interesting.

Knowing who NN was could give us a valuable pointer as to what Z looked like on the night: The kid was in all likelihood mistaken, but Z (the real Z) should nevertheless bear some resemblance to NN (the person identified by the kid).

Possibly, at least. It could be that everything about this "sighting" will turn out to be a red herring – a misunderstanding of some kind. But all the more reason to clear it up.

Going back to the original problem, one could propose a worst case scenario of sorts for Donald Fouke, one that would look like this:

Fouke rolled up on Z on Jackson St. He did stop him, and talked to him briefly (asked him if he had seen anyone). He then met up with Pelissetti, not informing him about the encounter.

He did not tell Pelissetti about the encounter later that night either, and after it became clear that the man he had encountered was Zodiac, he kept the encounter to himself (because he was embarrassed).

When Zodiac’s Death Machine letter was published, Fouke reacted by producing his memo, which was an effort on his part to exercise some damage control (yes, I encountered the guy – but no, I did not talk to him, he’s lying about that).

Well. The problems with the above scenario are many:

There are reasons to suspect that Fouke did talk to Pelissetti about the encounter that night. The description of the perpetrator could be said to indicate the latter. There are also reasons to believe that Fouke at the very least talked to Pelissetti at some point prior to producing his memo (which is an important point if we’re talking about a possible scenario in which nobody was aware that the encounter had taken place).

Zelms plays a part in this which isn’t entirely clear. But we do know that he was present. Fouke couldn’t safely assume that nobody would learn about the encounter unless he instructed Zelms to keep his mouth shut about it – and nothing indicates that he did this.

If Fouke for one reason or another was assuming (safely or not) that nobody knew about the encounter, there was no reason for him to produce the memo: Why insert himself into the matter, if nobody knew about it? If he was a dishonest character to begin with, who held the information back in order to protect his reputation, well – why didn’t he simply continue along that path?

Isn’t it equally viable Fouke told Pelissetti immediately about the encounter, told his superiors about the encounter and the police report was drafted up the following day, incorporating his description. It is conceivable the police didn’t want the encounter made public, so as to concentrate the media and focus efforts on catching the killer, as opposed to having attention drawn back to the police. You could argue the police knew the man on Jackson Street was the killer, so I cannot understand Armond Pelissetti stating in the documentary "I don’t believe it was Zodiac." This on the face of it seems an absurd statement, after all Fouke and the 3 teenagers virtually concurred on the composite sketch, with the only deviation being Fouke saying he was "older and heavier". Furthermore why would Pelissetti sign the police report, that clearly had Fouke’s description incorporated into it, if he didn’t believe the man on Jackson Street was the same man who left the cab. He is putting his name to something he doesn’t believe in. Anyway Fouke should have signed the October 12th police report, he was most pertinent to the sighting. If therefore we believe that Fouke had no input into the police report, then in the space of 8 hours, the teenagers have leapt from a low estimate of 25 years to early forties just like that, and if that was the case you just wonder how much external influence coaxed them into such a change, if not Donald Fouke’s description.
I actually don’t believe the memorandum was the direct statement of Donald Fouke, what trained and decorated police officer would say of Eric Zelms "I do not know if he saw the subject or not" What a ridiculous line, when you passed the unknown white male, with your partner by your side.

Isn’t it equally viable Fouke told Pelissetti immediately about the encounter, told his superiors about the encounter and the police report was drafted up the following day, incorporating his description.

Yes, it is.

"I don’t believe it was Zodiac." This on the face of it seems an absurd statement…

Yes, it does. What he actually proposes, whether he realizes it or not, is that Fouke encountered a person who largely fit the description of the initial witnesses, and who was observed at a point which corresponds perfectly with what Zodiac himself says in his letter (and also with the estimated time it would have taken the killer to proceed from the crime scene to said point), but who nevertheless wasn’t Zodiac – but a random passerby who has never been identified (to our knowledge).

Pelissetti seems to have been hung up on the assumption that the killer would have been visibly blood stained. This is the reason he offers (for why it couldn’t have been Z): Fouke would have noticed the blood. He uses the same reasoning when describing his own observation of the dog walker.

I actually don’t believe the memorandum was the direct statement of Donald Fouke, what trained and decorated police officer would say of Eric Zelms "I do not know if he saw the subject or not" What a ridiculous line, when you passed the unknown white male, with your partner by your side.

Another oddity, no question about it. Fouke himself has gone some way to explain this, however, suggesting that what he meant was: "Go talk to Zelms. I can’t speak for him." But on the face of it, it seems like an odd thing to say. There are many odd things said – by both F and P – though. The Welsh Ancestry business is also borderline bizarre without context.