Norse (and everyone else:)

What I can’t understand is, if SFPD knew what was in Stine’s waybill, then why were they looking all over Nob Hill? Jim Wood’s article doesn’t say that one detective or source told him they were. The article says every available man was scouring Nob Hill looking for potential witnesses.

Either Power made the whole thing up, which doesn’t make Zodiac look any more reliable, or he personally picked up the waybill. But even if he did, why didn’t he turn it over to SFPD after he got his "scoop?" There don’t seem to be any more Zodiac articles by Power after the brief one about the Zodiac conference. Did police come to a conclusion at that conference that got Power into hot water? He wasn’t fired. Just taken off the Zodiac story. If he got into trouble, it didn’t involve handing over the waybill. Not according to Jim Wood’s article.

Weird.

There is probably a lot we don’t know about why certain things were done from within the SFPD, especially with this case and at this time. Not to mention the friction between reporters and detectives.

Regardless, I wonder if the caller for the cab that had Stine heading toward the Wash/Maple address was ever questioned? Forgive me if I’ve missed this in the reports or discussions…

The address Stine was headed to was: 500, 9th Ave.

I don’t know if the person(s) who requested the cab was ever questioned.

According to a cab company source, Someone called for a cab to come to 500 9th. Stine was radio dispatched to that address. The Someone at that address called back because no cab had arrived, and another cab was dispatched there.

Nothing unusual about that at all. The savvy thing for Stine to do was drive down Mason and see if he couldn’t pick up another fare along the way, since there was a good chance that Someone could have gotten in another cab by the time he got to 500 9th street.

In the Yellow Book, Graysmith claims that Toschi and Armstrong had the trip sheet, and visited every destination of every passenger from that whole day, looking for all the potential riders that day. But again, SFPD were looking all over Nob Hill, and the only specific destination on the bulletin is Washington and Laurel. Since there are a 100 or more falsehoods in the Yellow Book, one tends to believe Jim Wood over Robert Graysmith.

If Power was right, then why did Graysmith leave him and his scoop out of the Yellow Book? Graysmith claims Bob Popp was the regular Chronicle reporter covering SFPD that weekend, but that’s another falsehood. Popp covered Oakland PD until 1971. He knows the name of the secretary who opened the October 13 letter, he knows that Peter Stack supposedly hand carried that letter and piece of Stine’s shirt to SFPD, but he didn’t know that Power that supposedly confirmed Zodiac’s supposedly erroneous Washington and Maple? It wasn’t a secret. It was among the regular Chronicle articles published the week after the shooting. As an employee, Graysmith undoubtedly had access to the Chronicles microfiche archives.

Graysmith plagiarized a lot of articles from other newspapers and passed the information off as original interviews with the witness or cop. He didn’t even plagiarize this one by Power. He doesn’t mention Power at all. He claims that Avery was the reporter covering the Stine murder from day one.

After October 21, Paul Avery, Duffy Jennings, even Baron Muller wrote Zodiac stories for the Chronicle. But not Keith Power. Post hoc. Ergo, propter hoc?

Either Power lied, and that means Zodiac was more or less wrong after all, or Power possessed a piece of evidence he never handed over to SPFD. And Graysmith pretends the whole thing never happened.

Weird.

Question: Would Stine’s location at the time when he received the 9th Ave call have been logged (by him, on his trip sheet)?

I don’t think it would have. He would have made a note of going to Wash./Maple – that’s it. So, that would have been all the info anyone (Power and the cops) could have gotten from that trip sheet.

I seem to recall now that I think about it that the cops looked at Stine’s meter – and that the pick-up location (where Z hailed Stine) was calculated from that: using common sense (Stine would have gone to the busy theater district from the airport, as you would) plus the meter, and you end up somewhere round Mason/Geary.

"Washington/Laurel" could be a simple screw-up from whoever worded that bulletin. As for Graysmith/Power – no idea. It does seem odd that he doesn’t mention Power at all – he would have known, being right at the center of the thing at the time.

Bill: when you say that Power may have had evidence he didn’t share, are you referring to the trip sheet/waybill?

Norse:

Ask Keith Power. He’s still alive, and living in Napa. According to HIS article, which is posted on THIS website on a different thread, HE got the Mason and Geary, and Washington and Maple, from the waybill. Then he got kicked off the Zodiac story and ignored by Graysmith. For some reason.

According to Jim Wood, AND SFPD’s own bulletins, they knew nothing of this Mason and Geary OR Washington and Maple business. Even AFTER Power’s story ran in the Chronicle.

Let’s say you’re onto something, and Stine maybe "wouldn’t have" written down Mason and Geary. He was suppose to, since he was responsible for his waybill matching his meter, but what the heck. Let’s suppose.

Well, then, that means Power fabricated his story. And that means he was covering up for Zodiac’s mistake. Why "would" he do THAT?

On the other hand, if Power simply walked out to the parking garage, snooped through the front seat of the cab, and picked up the waybill and stuck it in his jacket and walked out with it on his way to the Chronicle building to type his story, that would explain BOTH his story AND the police "confusion."

It would also explain why Zodiac’s fingerprints are on the drivers door of Stine’s cab, AND the little list letter, but NOT on the Napa phone booth. It would also explain how Zodiac knew about the blonde, heavyset "suspect" Fouke and Zelms had seen walking up Maple (not Cherry; Maple) toward the park, even though, according to three eyewitnesses, who were reinterviewed by police a week later, just to be sure, he couldn’t have been the same man they saw robbing Stine and wipeing down the cab doors. That suspect was never mentioned in the papers, so we don’t know how Zodiac knew about him. We know that one Chronicle/Examiner reporter knew about him, but there’s no byline on that story.

Since we suspect Power of taking at least one piece of Stine evidence, maybe he also took . . . Nah. That’s too simple. Besides, we’d have to explain how he had a copy of Hoffman’s report about BRS. On July 6, the Chronicle published a story about that shooting (no byline) that is practically verbatim from Hoffman’s report. Except the bit about the passenger door of Darlene’s car door being torn open. In his letter, Zodiac corrects the Chronicle on that very point. He even imitates Hoffman’s spelling and style. He doesn’t correct the number of shots fired, though. (7, according to Hoffman’s report and the Chronicle story.) He only corrects the ONE thing that’s different between Hoffman’s report and the story in the Chronicle. The other two shell casings are mentioned in Lynch’s report, but it was not typed until several days later.

In his second letter, Zodiac claims he left BRS slowly and quietly, even though BOTH Mike Mageau AND George Bryant said he didn’t. In his July 5 report, the one the Chronicle reporter copied, Hoffman mentions Meyring and Lindemann stopping Andy N. Jr leaving BRS slowly and quietly. That suspect was never mentioned in the papers, either. A Chronicle reporter and Zodiac BOTH had a copy of Hoffman’s report, but not Lynch’s . . .

Nah. Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah . . . That’s waaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy too simple. Besides, it’s not even a mystery.

Let’s say you’re onto something, and Stine maybe "wouldn’t have" written down Mason and Geary. He was suppose to, since he was responsible for his waybill matching his meter, but what the heck. Let’s suppose.

Good point. I was thinking that he wouldn’t have logged it since the Z fare was something he picked up en route to his 9th Ave destination – but yes, I suppose he would have logged his starting point regardless, if he was indeed required to do so as per the policy of the cab company.

Which means that anyone who found his trip sheet would be able to determine where he picked up Z. I do recall reading somewhere that the cops took an interest in Stine’s meter, though – but I suppose they might have done so even if they knew precisely where the pick-up had taken place (from checking his trip sheet).

What you seem to suggest doesn’t strike me as particularly likely, however – i.e. that Power picked up the trip sheet from…what? the police impound or wherever the car was stored, the item in question being in the car? Surely it was stored with other pieces of evidence?

Anyway, the detectives who arrived on the scene must have checked out this trip sheet – I can’t imagine that they wouldn’t have. And surely they must have done so prior to any reporter being able to get his hand on it.

I do see in what, let’s say, direction you’re pushing this – and it’s an interesting theory. Not sure I buy it, though.

Norse:

There was no separate, locked garage area, so far as I know. The evidence technicians did not come on duty until 5:30 am. And evidence tampering, witness badgering, and so forth by reporters were SOP in those days. So it’s more than plausible. Reporters would sit at cop desks and type their reports for them, answer phones, and so forth. The Examiners Ed Montgomery and the Chronicles Bob Popp were practically deputies.

Stine’s killer was 20 years younger, 50-70 lbs lighter, and several shades brunetter than the guy F and Z saw walking on Maple. So the guy they saw was not the killer. So, how did Zodiac know about him? The Chronicle Examiner Sunday morning article described the shooter with blonde hair, so the reporter knew about him, but no newspaper article mentioned anything about two cops seeing this guy walking up Maple. How did Zodiac know about him? Unless they were accomplices, Stine’s killer couldn’t have known that two cops "pulled a goof." So how did Zodiac know? A Chronicle reporter AND Zodiac knew about a "suspect" that the actual killer couldn’t have known about. Only someone with access to police files could have known.

There’s no doubt a Chronicle reporter had a copy of Hoffman’s report. Zodiac knew exactly what was in that report, how Hoffman spelled certain words (and used words like thus) and knew about another "suspect" who was mentioned in that report but was not mentioned in the papers and could not have been the killer. Andy pulled in and out of BRS fifteen minutes after the shooter left, so the shooter could not have known about him. How did Zodiac know things in police reports that a Chronicle reporter knew about, but that the killer(s) could not have known about? How did a Chronicle reporter know about things in Stine’s waybill that Zodiac knew about, but SFPD did not know about?

What other explanation is there? Once? Fluke. Twice? Coincidence. Three times? Plus the fingerprints? What do we call all of that?

Interesting points above, I agree with your reasoning.

Imo, the possible answer is quite clear.

1.Zodiac was a cop, and had access to the files
2. Zodiac had a cop friend who was sharing with him things that he shouldn’t have been
3. The cops were protecting him for whatever reason.

When you consider just how many goofs these cops pulled, and how reluctant they are today to re-test evidence, you cant help but question is there something more sinister going on. When you consider Darlene’s links to different cops, the fact they frequented her restaurant, the more I feel there is cop ties to Zodiac himself.

I know people will say "cops were inexperienced back then", and sure you have a point; though I struggle to believe they were that inexperienced that they genuinely handled this case just THAT badly.

Stine’s killer was 20 years younger, 50-70 lbs lighter, and several shades brunetter than the guy F and Z saw walking on Maple. So the guy they saw was not the killer.

Eh? How do you know that?

The physical descriptions in this case isn’t something I tend to put much emphasis on, to be honest. And I have no idea how you reach the conclusion above. The most obvious explanation as to how Z knew about the two cops and the "goof" they pulled is that he encountered them personally, walking down Jackson St that night.

What you make out as a paradox is only that if you presuppose that the guy Fouke met on Jackson was NOT the killer – but I don’t see how you can presuppose that. Who said Z was twenty years younger, much slimmer and more of a brunette? The kids across the street?

The discrepancies between the killer’s appearance as described by various witnesses aren’t all that remarkable to me. They’re within the range of what one might expect – in my opinion. If A says the killer is a pregnant woman with a huge beard and B claims he’s a midget with a flaming red afro – then yes, something’s up. But that isn’t the sort of thing we’re dealing with here.

Norse:

If you compare the description from BOTH SFPD bulletins to the one in the Fouke memo, then the differences are obvious.

Norse: All I’m saying is, according to the actual LE files, which recently became available, there is no actual evidence that the person who wrote the letters killed any of the victims. And a lot of the things we have been assuming all these years are wrong, and very often, flat out lies. In fact, it turns out that the actual evidence tends to point the other way. The FBI reports from late July/early August 1970 mention the partial match Hamlet found. You can find them on several websites. I don’t like to post links to those guys websites on here. Anyone else?

Is it possible someone else wrote the letters? Apparently. And every "new" clipping or file that gets posted on one of these websites points more and more and more to a Chronicle reporter. It’s on a different thread, but the "link" between the Berryessa car door and the Zodiac letters consists of the words "Vallejo" and "by knife." If we look at it ourselves, the V is different, the a is different, the i is different, and the b, f, e, maybe k and n are "similar." Which is about as much of Allen’s and "Earl Best’s" handwriting and Gaikowsky’s handwriting that also supposedly matches. Try it yourself. Practice your Zodiac handwriting for seven weeks and see if you can’t do better. Because the entire first letter, including the symbol, had been printed in the newspapers almost 8 weeks before the attack. I’m not suggesting Power killed Cecelia Shepard. I’m suggesting someone who read the Vallejo papers did and simply blamed it on that Code Killer guy. With some success.

Okay, let’s look at your explanation. Police "errors." How many? EVERY piece of evidence? EVERY witness description? Including Fouke’s? Then, how difficult would it be for a reporter to concoct a fake Zodiac killer?

Vince: Well, I see no harm in admitting that it’s more than a little bit possible. It wouldn’t have taken much, except the cajones to waltz into the lab where Stine’s clothes were drying and take a piece of his shirt. We now know, thanks to the articles Seagull recently dug up, that a Chronicle reporter apparently had the cajones to waltz out to the parking garage and grab Stine’s waybill. The only other explanation is, he had the cajones to make the whole thing up. And then we’re still stuck with a Chronicle reporter who made up lies to make the Zodiac look real.

I just can’t find any other "evidence" to the contrary. Can anyone else?

To me the varying descriptions of Z (as per the canonical crimes) aren’t MORE differing than what you’d expect under the circumstances. Most witnesses saw him at night for a brief period of time. The exception is Hartnell who was in no position to determine either his age or say anything about his facial features. What he saw was a heavy-set (the impression might have been enhanced by the fact that the attacker wore unshapely, baggy clothes) man, around six feet tall. None of the other descriptions given are at dramatic odds with this. Witness descriptions will vary – in many cases they do so to a far greater degree than those in the Z case.

What Horan claims is roughly this: The man the kids across the street saw in the cab fit the description of a "taxi mugger" already known to the SFPD. Another witness (so says Horan – I don’t know where he gets this information from), "possibly a fellow cab driver", corroborated this, having seen a man matching this description enter Stine’s cab somewhere in the vicinity of Mason/Geary (again – I don’t know where Horan gets this from).

Fouke then encounters a completely different guy on Jackson – a man who looks nothing like the taxi mugger and the man observed by the kids across the street.

Implication (or accusation, more like it): Z didn’t kill Stine. The latter was killed by said taxi mugger – and someone capitalized on this, someone who was into writing letters and claiming to be a serial killer. This someone stole a piece of Stine’s bloody shirt, mailed it to the Chronicle…and so forth.

Two things: Don Fouke (so goes one story) either saw the composite based on the kids’ description or was given this description verbally – and confirmed that this matched the description of the man he had encountered on Jackson. He modified the description, yes – adding some details, the man was heavier and older, etc. If the first description, which he corrected (let’s put it like that), had been nothing like the man he encountered – well, I assume he would have done more than to correct it slightly.

Is Don Fouke simply lying about the whole thing?

Secondly: Is it reasonable to say that whoever killed Stine never took a piece of his shirt? When was it first remarked that a piece had been removed? I mention this point because it strikes me as crucial. Either everyone is in on this thing – or it’s just the reporter (and possibly some cronies of his). Is the coroner in on it too? Or did the reporter manage to snatch a piece of the shirt before the cops (or the coroner, or whoever) noticed? Fooling them into thinking the killer had taken it?

If the killer did take it – and the reporter managed to secure ANOTHER piece of Stine’s shirt…it becomes very interesting. We’re then dealing with a taxi mugger who doesn’t only kill his victim (which he hadn’t done previously – or had he?) but takes off with a piece of his shirt for God knows what purpose (certainly not to mail it along with a letter – because that particular trick was someone else’s feat).

And, the other possibility – if the reporter (and only the reporter) ripped a piece off Stine’s shirt in order to continue with his letter campaign, we have to conclude either that pretty much everyone in the department was in on the "prank" OR that nobody noticed that Stine’s shirt was in one piece at the crime scene and thus weren’t surprised when it later transpired that someone had torn a piece from it.

For what it’s worth, Horan does seem to presuppose that Stine’s killer took a piece of the shirt with him, "for whatever reason" (or words to that effect). Well, I would like to know what reason that might be. We’re dealing – according to this theory – with a junkie (I believe) who accidentally shot Stine as he was mugging him. It was a standard taxi mugging gone wrong, nothing to do with the Zodiac killer. Fine. Now explain why on earth this unrelated junkie who didn’t even mean to kill Paul stine, meticulously tore off a piece of his shirt – and disappeared with it.

That seems like a proper puzzle to me.

Norse:

In order to keep this thread on the tracks, let’s just look at the material ourselves, and not drag other people’s interpretations into it.

When we read Pelissetti’s report, he mentions a description similar to the one in the actual Fouke memo. We know that SPFD searched the park, so SOMEONE at SFPD paid enough attention to Fouke’s blonde guy walking that way. Fouke said the original dispatch said the suspect was a Negro Male Adult. Maybe it did, we don’t know. But when Fouke got to the scene, Pelissetti or someone told him, "The witnesses said he was a white guy." Fouke probably then said, "Well, Crunchberries! We saw a flipping white guy over at Jackson and Maple walking toward the park. We thought we were supposed to be looking for a black guy.” At that point, Pelissetti or whoever radioed SPFD to send units to search the park. Pelissetti then typed his report based on a combo of the kids description and Fouke’s. The October 12 story (no byline) in Sunday’s Chronicle Examiner mentioned the blonde hair, heavier weight, and age about 40, and "later reports [Fouke] indicated someone was seen running into Julius Kahn playground . . ." No mention of two cops, just blond hair and someone was seen "running" into the park. So it’s reasonable to deduce that the REPORTER knew it was two cops who "reported" a blonde guy headed for the park. The Examiner article of the 13 (the one Horan dug up) gives the "correct" description given by the kids of a younger, thinner brunette guy that was used to create the first composite and the second one. All subsequent articles and SFPD bulletins more or less use this description.

Graysmith claimed the second composite of October 18 was a result of the Fouke memo. Not true, the Fouke memo is dated November 12. The very latest clippings uploaded to this site (maybe Horan hasn’t seen these) include one that specifically mentions that the new composite of the 18 was the result of detectives reinterviewing the kids. Both of those composites say the suspect was younger, thinner, and brunetter than Fouke’s suspect. So, the blonde guy did not shoot Stine, apparently. Nothing weird about the confusion, EXCEPT that Zodiac somehow knew specifically that "two cops" saw the blonde guy at Jackson and Maple. Did they talk to him? Fouke adamantly says no, but whether they did or not, there doesn’t seem to be any way for the actual shooter to have known about it. But the reporter who wrote the first story seems to have known most of it, at least.

That was my point. Does that prove that Hal Snook wrote the Zodiac letters? I don’t know about that. But it does still leave the question of how Zodiac knew about the blonde guy Fouke saw, if he didn’t shoot Stine. And Zodiac did the same thing in his second letter when he claimed to be Andy Jr who did not shoot Darlene, and who was not mentioned in the papers, but who WAS mentioned in Hoffman’s report. There is very little possible doubt that both a Chronicle reporter AND Zodiac definitely saw that report.

Hal Snook or not, that’s quite a few coincidences buzzing around one person’s head. And now, thanks to one of those recently discovered articles, we know of one specific Chronicle reporter who seems to have had access to evidence from Stine’s cab that SFPD didn’t have possession of. And still don’t, as far as I know.

IF, if, if, if, someone took ANOTHER piece of Stine’s shirt (the largest piece, which the killer apparently tore off to use as a rag, is still missing) they had to do it 1. At the scene 2. In the ambulance 3. At the morgue 4. In the crime lab itself. Out of all those possibilities, only one would have been when the person could have been ALONE with the shirt, and that would have been when it was laid out to dry in the lab and Deputy Schultz was busy doing something else.

From about 1:00 am to about 5:30 am, both the cab and the shirt were left unattended. The only people I can think of who could have had access to them at that time would be either a cop, or a reporter. And there is exactly one person on that list who had access to Hoffman’s report, Fouke’s verbal report to Pelissetti, AND Stine’s waybill. And it ain’t Hal Snook. And it ain’t Bob Popp. It’s Keith Power. Or, at least, Power’s solid gold source.

Anyone ever seen Keith Power’s handwriting?

All that is very well, Bill – and there are plenty of discrepancies, holes, oddities and whatnot in this case. If there weren’t any – if everything everyone said and did half a century ago made perfect sense all the way – now that would be suspect!

The most obvious explanation for these discrepancies is not that someone staged a hoax, however. The latter is the standard conspiracy theorist’s response to a lack of clarity or coherence. People are sometimes forgetful, sometimes not very good at their jobs, sometimes – yes – downright mendacious. Doesn’t mean there’s a conspiracy.

You didn’t answer what I consider a crucial question here: Why did Stine’s REAL killer, the one who was not a letter writing maniac, find it necessary to rip off a piece of Paul’s shirt and run away with it?

EDIT Just to make it clear, I’m not dismissing your take on this as a "conspiracy theory", i.e. a euphemism for "crackpot theory" or what have you. The case remains unsolved and your take isn’t any less valid than many other theories I’ve seen. What I mean is that when we’re faced with a bunch of holes, discrepancies, contradictions, etc. – the conspiracy angle seems like a welcome one: how do you explain all this? Well, somebody was faking it, hoaxin’ it…there are holes and contradictions because someone was out to fool the general public from day one.

I don’t buy that myself. There are other ways to explain it. We’re looking at these statements, these reports, articles and God knows what else – all this which leaves much to be desired – from a vantage point half a century down the line. There is bound to be PLENTY which doesn’t make sense.