I thought the dog walker was Mr. X.

Mr X? Who would that be?

I don’t think I’m supposed to post his name on here, so I won’t.

viewforum.php?f=44

Thanks Trav. And Buck I understand now why that is after looking a few different site’s and forums.

I think I should make clear here that I am not accusing the dog walker of any involvement in the crime itself. What I did question in the original post, and still do, is question Two listed in the original post, that being:

"If Armond Pelissetti has just walked up Jackson St a minute, maybe even seconds before, how come he doesn’t see anyone walking down Jackson on the other side? Fouke reports that upon his arrival at the corner of Maple and Jackson, a stocky white male wearing glasses was walking down Jackson on the sidewalk."

Who he was isn’t really of importance to the overall nature of this post, and I asked out of curiosity rather than suspicion because I thought he would have been interviewed as a possible witness.

EDIT: I was curious how A.P could speak to the dog walker at that Intersection, and a minute or so later, Fouke pulls up there and doesn’t report seeing anyone there other than the suspect walking down Jackson.

I also wonder if this man with his dog could be the reason for Zodiac ending up at Washington and Cherry Intersection instead of the apparent intended location of Washington and Maple. Pelissetti said that he ‘Turned to the right’ while at Jackson and Maple intersection and saw the man with his dog which means the man was on Maple Street hill somewhere. If he was going up Maple St then this scenario would be unavailable, but if he had come down Maple St heading towards Jackson, then he would have had to have been at, or in the general area of, Washington and Cherry St Intersection at some point. It would be nice to be able to ask him if he had been at Washington and Maple streets about 5 to 10 min’s prior to seeing Armond and ask him does he recall any vehicle passing that intersection when he was there?

As I said, I don’t see him as a suspect, but a witness.

I have mentioned the Pacific Heights Murder and the continuity being all wrong as per the statements of the people at or near the scene. But nobody has yet to really give the inconsistencies an explanation that provokes the response "Ahh I see, that’s what caused the confusion…" To me, this is extremely important to get to the bottom of what happened on Oct 11, 1969 in the minutes after 10:00pm.

Kjell Qvale was apparently walking his dog on Maple St near Jackson Intersection when Armond Pelissetti arrived there looking for the White Male who had just dashed off Down Cherry & Jackson. Qvale was actually on Maple St, according to Armond P. anyway (Although Qvale’s location is disputed by some). If Z dashed North on Maple and into the Grounds of the Presidio then Qvale surely would have had to see him. That, coupled with the fact that Armond Pelissetti is on Z’s tail in hot pursuit along Cherry, then Right onto Jackson and down all the way to Maple and Qvale’s supposed location opposite the Presidio Entrance on Maple. Armond would simply have had to have passed Z to on his way to Maple St or the Zodiac would have had to had gone into the Grounds of the Presidio already which, we know with reasonable surety, he hadn’t (Because Don & Eric encounter him on the sidewalk around the exact area where Armond was just stood before he left to go back back up Jackson. So where did he appear from? How did Armond not pass him either on his way to, or making his way back from, Maple & Jackson Streets? Illustration below:

Seeing as this is the most recent thread touching on the subject, I’ll post here. I’m puzzled by both the dog walker and the man who was apparently recognized by a young witness. Here’s what I can gather:

There were three witnesses to Zodiac’s movements at the crime scene. The youngest of these was 13 years old.

A witness, described as an eight year old kid, thought that he or she recognized the perpetrator (as someone who lived in the area, a neighbor or at least a local guy). The guy was looked at – and cleared. Now, this surely means that this 8yr old kid witnessed Z going about his business at the crime scene. Which would seem to indicate that there was a fourth witness, in addition to the three teenagers across the street (there was no eight year old kid among the three).

Is this simply a typo/misunderstanding in the report? Is this "8yr old" really one of the teens? Or is there in fact a fourth witness?

Another report mentions that a man was brought to the crime scene for identification. One of the teenagers had a look at this man and concluded he was not Z. Now, surely these two incidents are one and the same? One of the teens mentions to the cops that Z reminded her (from what I can gather it was a girl) of a local guy. This local guy is then picked up and brought to the crime scene for identification. The girl looks at him and concludes that he isn’t Z, i.e. she has made a mistake, the guy may have resembled Z in some shape or form, but it isn’t him.

The confusion, then, is due to the fact that a teenager has for some reason been logged as an eight year old. Is this the explanation?

Lastly, whoever this local guy was, he was NOT the infamous Mr X – according to Pelissetti. He, Pelissetti, claims that the "dog walker" was indeed Mr X, but that the guy who was brought to the crime scene for identification was NOT Mr X.

Hm. I would give a lot to see an unredacted version of the report which mentions this 8yr old kid and this local guy.

"I’m puzzled by both the dog walker and the man who was apparently recognized by a young witness."

It puzzled me how Pelissetti encounters ‘the dog walker’ at the intersection of Jackson & Maple and yet only a minute or so later, possibly seconds, after Pelissetti leaves to go back up Jackson, Fouke arrives at the same intersection and there is no man walking a dog anywhere and instead, a white male descending Jackson Street sidewalk walking toward Fouke & Zelms and yet Armond Pelissetti seems to have missed this man as he walked back up Jackson seconds before! Doesn’t make sense does it? Unless…..

There never were two different men out there that night, a dog walker seen by Pelissetti, and a white male seen be Fouke, but actually, this was the same man? How is that possible? Well this is 3rd, maybe even a 4th hand claim that was made on a different thread and it’s this:

"In June 2005, I was speaking to Mike Butterfield, who was going original research on the case.

He told me that Pelissetti said that he had a "very tight time line" in going around the block and ran into the "dog walker" (whom he identified by name to Butterfield) "very quickly." He was standing still in a "driveway" by Washington and Maple. (There are no driveways on Maple between Jackson and Washington. Was he in a driveway on Washington? Was it towards or away from the crime scene?) He was not walking the dog but just standing there. AP asked him if he’d seen anyone and he said that he had not."

Now if that is true, and the ‘dog walker’ didn’t actually have a dog, nor was he on Maple walking the pooch, then this may be the same man that Fouke see’s because Armond see’s him ‘standing on a driveway’ and as Fouke approaches a White Male, he tunes onto a Pathway/Driveway of 3712 himself. The ‘dog walker’ can now be named legally as Kjell Qvale.

"Now, this surely means that this 8yr old kid witnessed Z going about his business at the crime scene."

You’d think so. I have a pending FOIA request for the release of the name of the suspect given by the eight year old witness. It is looking promising as I sent the request back in Nov and the longer it takes, the better your chances of success.

I successfully got the release of another suspect named in the same document last year but at the time I submitted that request Kjell Qvale was still alive so if he is listed as the man the eight year old saw then they wouldn’t have released it last year. However, I sent the pending request after Qvale passed away so if he is the man named by the eight year old then this time they will release it. I’ll upload to the site as soon as I get the response.

Thanks for this info, Welsh!

There are so many details here which are puzzling and confusing. Something is off about the timeline here – of that I am convinced.To me there seems to be a discrepancy between what Pelissetti allegedly does (after having dealt with the kids and called in the murder) with what Fouke does (specifically the Z encounter outside 3712 Jackson).

The remark about Dog Walker not walking his dog but just standing there is interesting. But surely Pelissetti didn’t change his story to the extent that there no longer is a dog in the equation at all? If so, you really have to wonder about the faculties of these people. Pelissetti says, then (to Butterfield), that he came across Dog Walker (identified as KQ) roughly on Maple and Washington. That’s a fair distance from KQ’s home – which is the first thing that springs to mind. But. What Pelissetti claims is this (and that part of his story has never changed, I think): he dealt with the kids, checked on Stine, called it in. Then he followed Z, as it were, based on what the kids told him (he went up Cherry, headed for the park). He proceeds along Cherry, cautiously (not wanting anyone to jump out and surprise him), turns right on Jackson, goes past the spot where Fouke sees Z, reaches the Maple/Jackson intersection – and then what? Does he proceed down Maple towards Washington, where he meets KQ at some point (near Washington)? Alright, let’s say he does. He talks to him (perhaps twice) and then, presumably, heads west on Washington back towards the crime scene. He has now completed a tour round the block – and somewhere on Cherry he meets Fouke.

But how long does it take Fouke to show up here? Fouke is en route to the crime scene, responding to the same dispatch Pelissetti received (the one about a black suspect). I don’t understand that. What Pelissetti does takes time. He completes a trip round the block on foot, proceeding with caution, at least at first – and speaks to KQ (perhaps twice) – how long does all this take? And it all happens while Fouke is en route, having responded to the same dispatch Pelissetti responded to. I find this hard to grasp, frankly.

Z has walked away from the cab, he’s heading north on Cherry – this is undeniable. If we assume that it was indeed Z Fouke drove past, he – Z – must have turned right on Jackson. How long does it take him to move up Cherry, turn right on Jackson and proceed to – roughly – No 3712, where he is observed by a passing Fouke? And, again, how long does it take Fouke to get to 3712 Jackson from his starting point (I don’t recall exactly where he was when he received the dispatch – but he wasn’t that far away (nearly on Washington going north, I think – meaning he had to go north from Washington up to Jackson and then go straight west for some blocks, not that many).

Yeah, again – I don’t get this.

Pelissetti could have gone straight east on Washington from the crime scene – thus meeting Dog Walker (KQ) south on Maple shortly after. But he didn’t go east – he went north, up Cherry, following in Z’s footsteps (as indicated by the kids).

Another thing that simply doesn’t add up is this…

Armond Pelissetti is the first officer on the scene. He exit’s his vehicle and notices some children heading toward the cab. He quickly ushers them back into the alcove of their home front door that they’d just come from. It is at this point that Armond states that the kids said the whoever had done this had just walked off down Cherry street and told A.P that he was not black, but white. A.P stated "I couldn’t get to the radio fast enough to let everyone else know" and broadcast the correction to BOTL for a White Male Adult, not Black.

So, considering Armond broadcast this a good 5, maybe even 10 minutes before Fouke rolls up on the White Male, how can Fouke & Zelms not be aware that it’s a white Male they are looking for because A.P has received an update on the suspect description from the three teens and immediately broadcast the correction?

Another thing that simply doesn’t add up is this…

Armond Pelissetti is the first officer on the scene. He exit’s his vehicle and notices some children heading toward the cab. He quickly ushers them back into the alcove of their home front door that they’d just come from. It is at this point that Armond states that the kids said the whoever had done this had just walked off down Cherry street and told A.P that he was not black, but white. A.P stated "I couldn’t get to the radio fast enough to let everyone else know" and broadcast the correction to BOTL for a White Male Adult, not Black.

So, considering Armond broadcast this a good 5, maybe even 10 minutes before Fouke rolls up on the White Male, how can Fouke & Zelms not be aware that it’s a white Male they are looking for because A.P has received an update on the suspect description from the three teens and immediately broadcast the correction?

This is precisely what’s been bothering me too. It seems to me that Fouke must have been responding to the original dispatch, the one about a mugging and a black male suspect. And that is odd indeed, as you suggest, if what Pelissetti says is the case.

Pelissetti: Arrives at scene, talks to kids, confirms that Stine is dead, gets on the radio to report the new situation. He then moves around the block and meets up with Fouke back on Cherry St somewhere. And yet Fouke states clearly enough that he isn’t informed about the new circumstances (murder + white suspect) before he learns this from Pelissetti directly. Something is definitely off here.

Fouke received a dispatch (about a mugging and a black suspect) roughly on Presidio Avenue and Washington. He then drives north and turns left on Jackson St, driving straight west until he passes Z outside No 3712. Driving from Washington/Presidio Ave to Cherry St/Washington via Jackson St takes – what – two-three minutes? Moving on foot from the crime scene to 3712 Jackson takes – roughly the same?

Well, that makes sense. Fouke receives the original dispatch on Presidio Ave/Washington, goes straight to the crime scene via Jackson St and meets Z outside No 3712. Shortly after he runs into Pelissetti on Cherry St.

But what does NOT make sense is that Pelissetti is able to make a tour of the block on foot (proceeding with caution, stopping to talk to a man walking his dog) BEFORE Fouke makes it to their meeting point on Cherry St. I can’t make sense of that. What is it that I don’t get here? Is Fouke responding to a second dispatch – and not the same dispatch Pelissetti responds to? A second dispatch that somehow contains the same erroneous information as the original one? If so, why didn’t Fouke respond to the first dispatch? He was patrolling the general area, wasn’t he?

Well I’ve tried to make sense of how it was Fouke never heard Armond’s updated description and one theory I came up with, which is rather unpopular, is that there never was an incorrect suspect description of ‘Black Male’ given and that this was simply a cover story invented after the fact and after Zodiac embarrassed them with his ‘ps – two cops pulled a goof’ brag. There is no mention anywhere in any reports of the incorrect description until after Zodiac says they stopped and spoke to him. This would give the SFPD reason to now come up with the story of the initial description being incorrectly given as a Black Male because imagine the anger from the public if it was known that Fouke drove past the Zodiac and knew he was looking for a white male as he did so? Now, with this story, they can limit the damage this blunder will cause the PD and give an answer to the coming question of the SFPD’s Competence. However, because they had to make the story up on the spot and in reaction to Zodiac’s letter, they didn’t think it through properly and realise that while saying this is what happened, it now causes all sorts of continuity problems.

As for how Armond could get halfway around the block and back and stopping to chat to Qvale etc without Fouke arriving at, or passing, Armond at Maple or on Jackson? No idea. I have wondered if the ‘two cops who pulled a goof’ that Z refers to is not, as we all think, Fouke & Zelms, but actually Pelissetti and Peda. Fouke is adamant he did not stop Zodiac and speak to him but Zodiac is adamant two cops did.

I said also previously that I don’t understand, after the teens inform A.P that the suspect has just seconds ago disappeared down Cherry st, why A.P takes off after the armed and dangerous suspect on foot? He said himself "There are innumerable alcoves so I was using every technique I know so I didn’t get my head blown off."
Well, why not get back in the prowl car and give chase? This seems the logical thing to do both for his own safety (far more difficult to hit a target protected by a metallic box that is moving at 30/40 MPH than it is to hit a clear and unprotected target travelling at 3 MPH on foot) and also it is the best chance of quickly closing the distance on the offender and catching up to him.