https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/paul-stine-10-11-69/one-man-and-his-dog/ Zodiac Killer Discussion Board en-US Thu, 18 Jun 2026 02:00:29 +0000 wpForo 60 https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/paul-stine-10-11-69/one-man-and-his-dog/paged/19/#post-20273 Sun, 13 Apr 2014 03:56:11 +0000 Paul Stine 10/11/69 Welsh Chappie https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/paul-stine-10-11-69/one-man-and-his-dog/paged/19/#post-20273 https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/paul-stine-10-11-69/one-man-and-his-dog/paged/19/#post-20271 Sun, 13 Apr 2014 03:48:14 +0000 Eh, I feel that the Fouke-Pelissetti thing is completely immaterial to solving the case. Even if one or both of them lied, what does it change? So you think that Fouke and Pelissetti are making up falsehoods and lying about where they saw suspects etc and doing it just because they fancy a bit of a giggle? I would suggest that if a Police Officer is fabricating certain claims in their report regarding a suspect then the overwhelming probability is that they are doing so because of something they either know, or strongly suspect about that suspect but are not willing, or not permitted, to disclose it. I am mindful that previously I have stated that people in general don't always need reasons to lie and that some people are just liars and lie for the sake of lying. But these are not your every day attention seekers, they are sworn SFPD Officers. As you know, there is a document that specifically states an eight year old identified someone as possibly being the person responsible for Paul's murder. If Fouke and/or Pelissetti know how this came about, lets say, just for example, Pelissetti stopped a guy on the night of Oct 11 and the witness positively ID'd the man as being the person who had just minutes before been at the cab, and Fouke and Pelissetti are keeping this information to themselves and are not saying who it is the witnesses ID'd then you would consider that immaterial and not of importance? I happen to think one of these two, maybe both, know something or saw something on the night that they are not willing or allowed to repeat. If you think that Fouke decided to lie 'just cause he can' and its of no real significance, that's up to you.]]> Paul Stine 10/11/69 Welsh Chappie https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/paul-stine-10-11-69/one-man-and-his-dog/paged/19/#post-20271 https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/paul-stine-10-11-69/one-man-and-his-dog/paged/18/#post-20269 Sun, 13 Apr 2014 00:46:06 +0000 Paul Stine 10/11/69 Nachtsider https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/paul-stine-10-11-69/one-man-and-his-dog/paged/18/#post-20269 https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/paul-stine-10-11-69/one-man-and-his-dog/paged/18/#post-20265 Sun, 13 Apr 2014 00:13:27 +0000 "Because he was putting his head down when he spotted the police car and he turned into the entrance way of a house. By entrance way I mean stairs that are concrete that lead to a pathway that leads to a front door. Never saw him get to the top of the stairs. You want the address of that residence?" Yes please, preferably on October 11, 1969. It's not much use now due to the suspect unlikely to be at or near this residence on account of 39 years having passed between the time it happened, and the time you decide to tell us. See, Don instantly realises and knows fully well that, firstly, he kept this quiet and secondly, made up a cover story of 'North on Maple' instead because as soon as he says it in 08 he confirms: "I didn't write it in the report, and I don't think I've ever told anyone." Then Don begins to tie himself in knots when pushed to explain by the narrator why he didn't ever mention this and instantly contradicts his last claim by now declaring "I though that's what I wrote in the scratch all these years." Which one are you going with Donny? A. "I didn't write it in the report, and I don't think I ever told anyone." which is admitting a deliberate and knowing intent on your part to pervert the truth, or B. "I thought that's what I said in the scratch for all these years." Can't have both Mr Fouke, these two statements are at odds and contradict each other. A or B please? But at least Don has a reason to justify his lying in a police report: "Because I assumed that the suspect didn't live there." Oh well, why didn't you say that before Fouke, now I completely understand and retract my accusations. If you assumed Zodiac wasn't local, then that is proof positive that he wasn't and this, not needed to be reported in a Memo. If there's one thing we can rely on for always being correct, it's the assumption. As we all know, if I assume tonight that tomorrow when I get up, the sun will no longer exist and has been replaced with a giant yellow banana, then that will simply have to be what happens tomorrow because I assumed it so. But to finish on a serious note, the above is a comical scenario but there is an extremely serious point to the comical example and that is, Fouke is simply trying to cover one lie by explaining it away with another and in doing so, takes the proverbial shovel and digs himself in just a little more deeper by making two claims in two consecutive sentences, each completely contradicting the other and therefore, himself. So, we have established, to the standard by which people are sentenced to death in Courts, that being 'beyond a reasonable doubt', that Fouke lied in his memo to cover uo the fact he actually saw WMA going toward house and not Presidio. That is simply fact. So why does this idea persist that there is just simply no way I can accept the idea that Don and/or Armond are covering up the fact that they aslo know who the WMA was that wasn't heading down Maple into the Presidio? As Mike-r asks in a different thread, or a similar question anyway...: "How do the police treat people who they catch in just one lie to them in interview?" Mike asks a similar version of this somewhat rhetorical question but the answer is the same in each case, they treat every single thing that person tells them from that moment on with extreme scepticism and suspicion. The police are aware that if your willing to lie once, then your willing to lie 50 times. But we are expected to simply ignore Fouke's 'Error' in the memo and put it down to a mistake because Fouke is employed by the SFPD? Sometime people are that adamant in defending these two because of their profession that I am surprised that someone hasn't yet told me "Fouke deliberately lied? That is absolutely outrageous and completely incorrect! Police Officers don't lie, they are not capable of it and the last SFPD Cop to try, his head exploded."]]> Paul Stine 10/11/69 Welsh Chappie https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/paul-stine-10-11-69/one-man-and-his-dog/paged/18/#post-20265 https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/paul-stine-10-11-69/one-man-and-his-dog/paged/18/#post-20228 Sat, 12 Apr 2014 02:58:50 +0000 Paul Stine 10/11/69 Welsh Chappie https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/paul-stine-10-11-69/one-man-and-his-dog/paged/18/#post-20228 https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/paul-stine-10-11-69/one-man-and-his-dog/paged/18/#post-20201 Fri, 11 Apr 2014 19:10:09 +0000 What it if was Kjell Qvale Don saw turning onto the steps but the steps didn't lead to 3712, but to 3636. Then, in that case, he would have seen the White Male and his reason for not apprehending him was simple, the guy genuinely lived at the address he was turning into. Don says "Seeing that it was a white male, in an affluent neighbourhood, we didn't think it was the suspect." Did he mean "Seeing that it was a white male, who lived in this affluent neighbourhood, we didn't think he was the suspect." Well, I'm open minded about this. And I won't rule KQ out as a suspect. But let's consider this: Fouke believes the man he drove past that night on Jackson St was the Zodiac killer. That is the impression I get, at least. We can even modify it a bit and say that Fouke has seemingly done little over the years to give the impression that the man was not the Zodiac killer. Which means - as I take it - that if what you suggest is true Fouke must know that KQ was the Zodiac killer. And that...well, that goes beyond what I'm willing to accept. I am ready to buy that Fouke (or any other LE representative) has never considered KQ as a viable suspect (at least not officially). But that is a far cry from actually knowing that he should have been treated as one - and keeping it under wraps all this time. I mentioned in another thread that there's a certain similarity between the KQ theory and the Prince Albert theory in the Ripper case - but KQ wasn't successor to the throne of England: protecting him wouldn't have been a priority if it was known that he was, in fact, a deranged killer. I really don't think so. So, in my opinion the only way in which Fouke could have spotted KQ outside his own home that night is if Fouke is - simply - confused about the actual location, i.e. that he's mixing up 3712 and 3636 (west and east of the intersection), and that doesn't strike me as very likely in all honesty.]]> Paul Stine 10/11/69 Norse https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/paul-stine-10-11-69/one-man-and-his-dog/paged/18/#post-20201 https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/paul-stine-10-11-69/one-man-and-his-dog/paged/18/#post-20149 Thu, 10 Apr 2014 23:05:25 +0000 Paul Stine 10/11/69 Welsh Chappie https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/paul-stine-10-11-69/one-man-and-his-dog/paged/18/#post-20149 https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/paul-stine-10-11-69/one-man-and-his-dog/paged/18/#post-20117 Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:14:54 +0000 Norse Stated.... "Agreed! The thing is that I've got nothing against these guys and I would very much like to believe every word they say - but as it stands that's impossible, since they contradict both each other and themselves to such a degree. By the way - has anyone tried to find out what kind of radio communication they actually used in the SFPD at the time? Duplex or simplex? That would be helpful to know." It sure seems that way Norse. I wish there could be one more opportunity to sit these 2 down and answer all of the known questions. They have all the answers. It can only be one way. I know the Duplex/Simplex question was dealt with, it must have been on TV's Board. It has been quite a few years ago. And I can't recall at this point what the answer was, or if there ever was an answer for sure. ]]> Paul Stine 10/11/69 Bayarea60s https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/paul-stine-10-11-69/one-man-and-his-dog/paged/18/#post-20117 https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/paul-stine-10-11-69/one-man-and-his-dog/paged/18/#post-20106 Wed, 09 Apr 2014 13:29:27 +0000

]]> Paul Stine 10/11/69 Norse https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/paul-stine-10-11-69/one-man-and-his-dog/paged/18/#post-20106 https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/paul-stine-10-11-69/one-man-and-his-dog/paged/18/#post-20097 Wed, 09 Apr 2014 11:25:40 +0000 This portion of the Z case should be vastly easier then the cops have made it. Agreed! The thing is that I've got nothing against these guys and I would very much like to believe every word they say - but as it stands that's impossible, since they contradict both each other and themselves to such a degree. By the way - has anyone tried to find out what kind of radio communication they actually used in the SFPD at the time? Duplex or simplex? That would be helpful to know.]]> Paul Stine 10/11/69 Norse https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/paul-stine-10-11-69/one-man-and-his-dog/paged/18/#post-20097