I was reading a comment made by Toschi earlier and it seems Toschi found Zodiacs decision to ignore Cherry Presdido entrance very odd also. Toschi said "Why turn right and onto Jackson when the Presidio entrance is right there?" He then speculated "It may very well be that Zodiac had a plan and that plan was to stick to a route. Or it may be that he had to stay on that route because he had a specific place in mind that he was going."

Found an extremely rare interview with Don Fouke earlier, one in which he gives while actually parked at the crime scene. He states "I first noticed him walking in the shadows of the trees. As the headlights hit him I noticed it was a white male and continued on." He ends by telling the interviewer: "I think I second guessed myself that night." Interviewer asks "That you should have stopped him?" Fouke ends with "Should have stopped him, should have spoke to him…… But we didn’t."

Starts at 2 mins of the clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xE1veHknVo

That interview is extremely interesting.

What Fouke seems to say here (from around 1:15) is that he passed Z on Jackson (looking for a NMA, thus ignoring Z) going towards Arguello Street (sic).

"As we arrived in Arguello Street the description of the suspect was changed to a white male adult…"

No mention of meeting up with Pelissetti at Jackson/Cherry, getting the amended description from him.

That interview is extremely interesting.

What Fouke seems to say here (from around 1:15) is that he passed Z on Jackson (looking for a NMA, thus ignoring Z) going towards Arguello Street (sic).

"As we arrived in Arguello Street the description of the suspect was changed to a white male adult…"

No mention of meeting up with Pelissetti at Jackson/Cherry, getting the amended description from him.

Yeah that clip of Fouke was filmed and shown on ‘Crimes of the Century – Zodiac’ and is quite well known and accessible. It’s the footage from 2:00 into the video I had never seen before that is much more recent.

And yeah I brought that point up before that you just noticed. Not only does Fouke seem to suggest that he get’s the update of the amended description of ‘White Male’ over his radio and not via A.P on Cherry but, in fact, listen to what he says carefully and he seems to be claiming in this interview that he never even turned off Jackson and South onto Cherry at all! But instead, continued on Jackson going past Maple, past Cherry, and toward the final intersection after Cherry, Arguello and that it is after he has passed Cherry and is approaching Arguello that the radio update comes through.

Now if this version is correct, version 743a (lol) then he can’t account for, nor back up, anything that Armond claims to have done because he wouldn’t even see him because going past Cherry and approaching Arguello when the radio announces the update of white male suspect, Don has now already passed Shuffling White man using steps to evade police and Don only has to swing right at Arguello (Where he already is) and he’s on West Pacific Avenue along the Presidio Wall.

I think Zodiac, if he thought they were on to him, would have gotten rid of that stuff.

If they nabbed him that very night, he wouldn’t have had the time.

I think Zodiac, if he thought they were on to him, would have gotten rid of that stuff.

If they nabbed him that very night, he wouldn’t have had the time.

Yes…if they nabbed him that night. But if they just spoke with him to where maybe he thought he could be a potential suspect, I would think he wouldn’t have continued to tease and gotten rid of anything that could implicate him as Zodiac.

Welsh: Yes, Fouke literally says that he was going towards Arguello in search of the suspect (whom he thought was a NMA). He doesn’t mention Cherry or the crime scene at all.

It’s hard to make sense of this. If we’re going merely on what Fouke says here it would appear that he was already (before he received the amended description) searching for a suspect based on a certain premise, namely that this suspect was headed for the Julius Kahn park (or at least that general vicinity).

Does this indicate that Fouke was aware of what the kids had told AP, i.e. that the suspect had walked north on Cherry, presumably (as AP saw it) headed for the park? Well, it certainly could indicate this. But then we’re back at the NMA/WMA conundrum. Fouke knew that the suspect was headed north – but he didn’t know the suspect was white (until he got to Arguello, where he received the amended description over the radio). Confusing stuff.

It has always been confusing Norse, and no real reason for it. Should be one of the simpler sides of the case. 2 cops involved, just get their stories straight and we’d at least know all their movements and when they took place.

What we know if you put all the videos, writings together and presume DF & AP meet at Cherry/Jackson, and according to them the conversation goes like….DF to AP "What do you know", AP to DF "Nothin", AP to DF, "What do you know?", DF to AP "Nothin" and then they left each other. Neither according to what they each have stated share anything of substance with the other. Kind of hard to believe. And to think that DF could have missed AP as the 80’s video states is also very hard to believe…. And in this 80’s video DF doesn’t even acknowledge AP at all. Or maybe he just skipped it cause AP didn’t share anything of value with him. But then it sure undermines DF’s version where he shares with AP about just having passed a WMA on Jackson…..

And at this point in 80’s video DF is still hanging on to the "I saw perp turning north on Maple heading towards park"….We know later on he denounces that statement, and last saw Z at 3712
Jackson St. This portion of the Z case should be vastly easier then the cops have made it.

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.

Seems like a wide scale modernization of police communication (including the introduction of computerized dispatch services and the 911 number) began to take place in the early 70s. The 60s were a different matter. The radio communication system in LA, for instance, is described as "antiquated" in the mid 60s.

They would have had two-way radio in their cars, though – that seems obvious. And if one car could communicate two ways with the central over a police band, I assume other cars would be able to pick up such communications, i.e. not just from the central but from any car that happened to be on the air. But this is a technical-historical matter that clearly goes beyond my expertise – so I won’t say anything for certain.

This portion of the Z case should be vastly easier then the cops have made it.

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.

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."

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.

Slightly off topic, but only for this one post, to say…

Well as for Jack the Ripper, In my opinion, they certainly caught him shortly after the fifth and final murder. Why do I say that so confidentially?

During Jacks reign of terror, after the second and third victims had been found, the Metropolitan Police and Scotland Yard drafted in dozens of extra uniformed and plane clothed officers to patrol the streets of Whitechapel. Just two weeks after the final murder of Mary Jane Kelly, Scotland Yard removed the extra man power from the streets returning to normal numbers of police patrolling.
Now, here’s the timeline of ‘Jacks’ murders:

Mary Nichols: Aug 31, 1888
Annie Chapman: Sept 8, 1888
Elizabeth Stride & Catherine Eddowes (Double event) : Sept 30, 1888
Mary Jane Kelly: Nov 9, 1888.

Now, as we see, and as police obviously knew, at one point in between Jacks murderous spree, there was a gap, or what we may call today ‘cooling off period’ of just over 5 weeks (Sept 30 to Nov 9.) So, they know that this killer has once had a gap of 5 weeks between murders (5 weeks of which, btw, the police kept up the extra foot patrols) so why in the World would they decide just a couple of short weeks after Mary Kelly that it’s now safe to ‘stand down’ with the extra manpower?

And apparently, I say apparently because I’ve only heard ripperologists say this and ive never seen documents myself, but apparently when the street girls of 1888 became outraged and asked why they are taking away the extra police presence, one of the higher up’s in Scotland Yard told them that they do not have to worry about Jack the Ripper as his reign is over, and the streets are now safe. He never did elaborate and say what led him to say this.

Why wouldn’t they come out and announce "We’ve got him?" Well as you probably know, earlier in the investigation a message was found scrawled on an entrance to a Jewish housing block saying "The Jewes (spelled incorrectly by the writer) are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." The first senior officer on the scene immediately ordered this anti-Semitic graffiti be washed away, and it quickly was. This decision, to this day, is highly controversial with many citing the destroying of evidence, others arguing that due to the hostility toward the Jewish community in London at the time, it was done to avoid an uprising.
I personally believe that Aaron Kosminski was ‘Jack’, and Aaron was a Jew. Keep in mind that at the time Jack was active, vigilante groups were patrolling the streets of Whitechapel looking to catch Jack and many of them made no secret to police that they believed it was ‘one of the Jews.’ There was so much tension between the British and Jewish immigrant communities back then that all it needed was a spark to ignite it and it would have been all out anarchy.

In fact, the vigilante groups were, at one point, ready to lynch a Jewish Butcher in Whitechapel that they referred to as ‘Leather Apron’ because he was seen walking not far from a Jack crime scene with blood down his leather apron. The crowd didn’t care about logic dictating that a butcher would likely have blood on his apron, they were out to catch Jewish Jack.

If the Police discovered Aaron Kosminski was JTR, I can understand why they kept it quiet. There is also reported documents written by senior ranked Police officers that suggest that Jack has been caught and that he was, in fact, a Jew by the name of ‘Kosminski.’

I love people who dismiss the Fouke & Pelissetti accounts discrepancies as "A misunderstanding’ or as something insignificant and ‘I’m sure there’s a simple explanation.’

There are those who, at the mere hint of a suggestion that Police Officers are complacent in a conspiracy to lie, will shut their eyes, cover their ears and shout "LALALALALALA – I CAN’T HEAR YOU LALALALA."

I admit, it would be nice to believe that Don and Armond have done nothing with malicious intent to conceal something and that it is all just a misunderstanding but, in reality, that is not what the evidence says. What do I mean? Well, if people want to believe that Fouke genuinely got confused and mistook Maple Street for a residence then feel free. For me, Don did not record in his memo "Last seen going North on Maple" because he forgot how to differentiate a house from a street, but rather, that he deliberately lied in the memo and fabricated the statement. Now I know this is hard to accept to some who wish to believe that it wasn’t intentional on Fouke’s part because Police Officers are incapable of telling an untruth, but Fouke simply did.

Don declares on Camera in 2008 that "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."

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?