There is nothing that Pelissetti says that undermines my case. I simply think he is mistaken when he says that KQ was only a witness. You seem not to like the fact that he says he spoke to KQ at all that night but I think that is hardly even debatable at this point for the reasons I’ve stated. I think a jury would roll its eyes at this line of reasoning. Pelissetti was THERE that night and he says there is a report that mentions KQ. And you insist on doubting him. Try calling SFPD and demanding as a "Vegas Lawyer" that they open their files to you. Good luck.
You want people to believe that the person who spoke to KQ that night doesn’t realize he DIDN’T speak to KQ but to somebody else and the person who wrote the report on the incident, BOTH of whom are the same person, doesn’t realize that he DIDN’T write a report about not speaking to KQ, or whatever. Huh?
Regardless, when I came forward to SFPD again in 2011, my report went all the way up to the level of the Chief in early 2012. If they had decided that KQ was not Z up to that point, via DNA or by examining what Pelissetti said, or by other means, why would they have wasted their time reading anything I had to say? But keep blowing the smoke.
I don’t really doubt that Pelissetti spoke to Qvale. You’re missing my point. Rather, YOU don’t know that he did because there is no official record of the conversation and the only indication that Pelissetti ever spoke to Qvale comes from statements made from memory over 30 years later. But you doubt Pelissetti when he offers his assessment that KQ could not have gotten from the crime scene to his home and back out in front of his yard in enough time to meet Pelissetti. So, you take Pelissetti at his word when it helps your case but doubt him when it doesn’t. You should be equally skeptical of whether he actually spoke to Qvale in the first place.
As I understand it, Qvale offered his fingerprints to SFPD to rule him out. If that is true, why would he do that if he was the killer? That would be moronic. There is simply no way that he could know that he wiped down enough of the cab to avoid leaving his prints.
As I understand it, Qvale offered his fingerprints to SFPD to rule him out. If that is true, why would he do that if he was the killer? That would be moronic. There is simply no way that he could know that he wiped down enough of the cab to avoid leaving his prints.
Not only the cab, but fingerprints on any of the letters, envelopes, Hartnell’s car (if you believe LB stabber and PH shooter were the same guy,) BRS phone, and so on.
Stine’s killer proved he was Z. If KQ was Stine’s killer, that means KQ is nailed as Z if his prints match anything from Z.
Not only the cab, but fingerprints on any of the letters, envelopes, Hartnell’s car (if you believe LB stabber and PH shooter were the same guy,) BRS phone, and so on.
Stine’s killer proved he was Z. If KQ was Stine’s killer, that means KQ is nailed as Z if his prints match anything from Z.
Right. But I don’t know if any of the fingerprints from LB match the fingerprints from Riverside or PH. My limited understanding is that they are mostly partial prints. I suspect, though I don’t know this for sure, that the Riverside prints don’t match either the Napa or PH prints, else why did Riverside change course in 1969 after initially reaching out to SFPD and Napa. This DOES NOT mean they were not left by the same person, as that could still be the case. It could be that there were not clear prints of the same fingers or the same parts of those fingers left at the various crime scenes. However, if KQ is the killer, his prints would match all the partials, which is why I cannot think of any reason that he would willingly offer up his fingerprints. I don’t know if he actually did that…Ray Grant told me that KQ offered his fingerprints to SFPD in the early 2000s. Maybe Mike knows if that really happened or not.
The timing of the L.A. Times letter in relation to KQ has been an ongoing interest of mine, given its proximity to the attempted Rolls Royce deal. However, it now comes to my attention that he attended the Geneva motor show in Switzerland, roughly two weeks after the trip to England.
The article was published on March 12th, the show started on the 11th. Assuming KQ was there for only one day, that would give him 2 days to return to California to mail the letter. Then the Silky Sullivan/St. Patty’s event was 2 days after that.
Of course, he may have stayed there longer. I suppose it would have been too easy if the show had started on the 13th and there was no way he could have mailed the L.A. Times letter; this is the only article I can find about the event.
