Examiner (to what extent this description is based on what the kids told Pelissetti and subsequently the detectives is unknown to me): 25-30 yrs old, 150 lbs, 5’8, reddish brown hair, glasses, dark jacket, dark gray pants (no mention of footwear).

Fouke: 35-40 yrs old, barrel chested, heavy, blond/graying, crew cut, 5’10, dark jacket, dark brown (pleated) pants, dark shoes, glasses.

If the composite can be said to reflect what the kids saw, they too observed a man with what can be described as a crew cut.

How far apart are these descriptions? You can word it like this: “the one is a young, slim man with brown hair – the other is a fat old blonde guy” and it sounds pretty conclusive. But that isn’t the only way of wording it. There are clear similarities between the two men.

And my main point remains this: If it was glaringly obvious that the man Fouke encountered was not the man observed by the kids – then why the embarrassment? Why the memo? Did Fouke pretend to be embarrassed by the fact (which wasn’t a fact – and he knew it) that he had met Z that night? And to what end? Why did the SFPD end up admitting that Fouke and Zelms drove past the Zodiac killer that night – if it was clear as day that the man they drove past had nothing to do with the murder? Why not say that, then, and avoid all the speculation as to whether Fouke had talked to the guy or not – which continues to this very day?

PS The latter can be extended to include Toschi and Armstrong, specifically. They talked to the kids. They knew precisely what the killer looked like – according to the kids. And they knew about Fouke’s encounter on Jackson St – and knew exactly what his guy looked like, or rather what his description looked like.

Horan claims that Toschi and Armstrong were able to confirm what Pelissetti had already learned that night – that the kids had seen a "young man with red hair" and so forth. Now, what ends up in the report then is

a) a description of the suspect which is completely at odds with what the witnesses (the only witnesses mentioned in the report) had to say (this is Horan’s take on it), or

b) a description of the suspect based on what ALL witnesses had to say, including those who were not mentioned in the report (namely Foukes and presumably Zelms, who must have seen the guy too). Pelissetti’s description is a combination of what the kids said and what Fouke said later.

Now, my question is this: how likely is it that this description (based on the kids’ statement – which both Toschi and Armstrong were able to confirm later that night – and then amended based on what Fouke said) is COMPLETELY at odds with what the killer actually looked like?

SFPD were presumably interested in catching the guy. I don’t see how they would have taken any interest whatsoever in this old, fat blonde guy Fouke met if it was blatantly obvious that he wasn’t the killer. And keep this in mind: as far as we know the composite wasn’t altered because of Fouke’s input. So, this is not a case of the kids’ original (and true) description of the killer being discarded in favor of Fouke’s (false, irrelevant) description. The composite was based on what the kids saw – Fouke’s description, in his memo, comes in addition to this, separately. I don’t see how these two descriptions could have existed side by side in a criminal investigation if they had nothing in common. That makes absolutely no sense regardless of what one thinks about the case as such.

Just to finish musing on this damn trip sheet (mostly to get this straight in my own head, but hopefully it can lead to some interesting ideas from others too):

* Do we have any indication that the cops found Stine’s trip sheet? It’s not mentioned in the report – that much seems clear. To my thinking it would have been noted if they hadn’t found it. Finding it and not mentioning it strikes me as more likely than looking for it, not finding it and not mentioning it. Er, if that makes sense. What was conspicuously missing from the cab – car keys and wallet – was duly noted. One might think the trip sheet would have been in that category too if they hadn’t found it. The list of items found, on the other hand, could be incomplete for one reason or another.

* But, again, no mention is made of the trip sheet in the report. What is mentioned explicitly, however, is that the meter was checked. From this it was concluded that Stine had most likely picked up a fare en route to his scheduled pick-up (on 500, 9th Ave). This could indicate that they didn’t find the trip sheet – but not necessarily. As I suggested previously, they could have found the trip sheet but been unable to determine anything from it – because Stine may not have updated it. I don’t know how religiously Stine logged his fares – that’s one thing. And I don’t what what his routines were either. Perhaps he jotted down every fare (going from A to B) he took on immediately, perhaps he did not. He might have logged them in bulks (while having a smoke, say), at certain intervals.

* Another possibility is that they found the trip sheet, complete with the info about where Stine picked up Z, but still mentioned the meter because they couldn’t determine from the trip sheet alone that the Z fare was an add-on, so to speak. The trip sheet may not have indicated which fares were scheduled and which were people who hailed him en route.

* Preliminary conclusion: I don’t know enough about the nature of trip sheets in the late sixties. Would be great to hear from someone who knows something about this subject.

There was a "fare book" found at the murder scene. Maybe just semantics as to whether it was called a "trip sheet" or "fare book". We have so little in the way of police reports from the Stine murder that it is impossible to say that certain aspects of the murder were or were not investigated.

http://www.zodiackiller.com/StineCab3.html

We have so little in the way of police reports from the Stine murder that it is impossible to say that certain aspects of the murder were or were not investigated.

Very true. Beyond Pelissetti’s (brief) report, Stine’s record of death (which hardly contains any useful info at all) and Fouke’s memo – there is nothing, I believe.

I don’t think the caption on the picture you linked to is accurate, though, Seagull. The item in that picture looks more like a street guide/map.