Hi-

I sent AP my report in 2007. He read it and called it "completely amateurish" with not even one fact that he found interesting. Now, I am either right or wrong but nobody from a police force has ever trashed my work like that. Even SFPD in 2012 was interested in it–ten years after the DNA "excluded" KQ. Go figure. Even many other amateurs (at least those without strong agendas that preclude them from giving me any credit) agree that I make some valid points. But not good old AP.

A "certain person" who solves cases for a living called AP a "willing dupe." I’ll let you connect the dots.

Ranch was in Oakville…a nice stopping off point between LB and downtown Napa.

Mike

Mike,
Can you comment on your experience with S.F.P.D ( vis a vie your theory) in the year or two run up to the DNA tests in 2002 and also how the samples were collected and who was responsible for collecting /overseeing same?

Hi-

The question I had for you Morf is quite simple: Would you be willing to say that your suspect is not Z and simply walk away from him and never look back if you were told that his handwriting didn’t match? This is a case where the physical evidence has many more question marks surrounding it than Z’s behavioral signature does. When thinking of DNA, for example, think in terms of dried semen left on the body of a victim in the BTK case, which tells you that whoever left it definitely had been at the scene of the crime, as opposed to the Z case where the DNA comes from letters. Nobody saw Z sitting at a desk writing letters. Was there one person involved or more? We simply can’t say. Tell me who can assure me of this definitively–and how that can do so. Z hinted at a collaboration with his "Gilbert and Sullivan" references.

As Graysmith said one time, "There was something about this case that was different." Maybe that is the wildcard element.

For the umpteenth time, Lindsey Robbins said that he met Qvale AFTER October 1969. This question has come up many times before and it gets kind of tiresome addressing this issue, which is meant to undermine my case, over and over again, just like the fact that people cannot grasp the notion that Z apparently didn’t lick his stamps and envelopes, as scientific testing by SFPD has apparently proven on at least two occasions. Lindsey did not know what KQ looked like on the night of the Stine murder. There was a rumor that Trevor knew Qvale prior to 1969 but I’ve never been able to track that one to earth. I just heard an anecdote one time to that effect. I doubt Rebecca did. I don’t know if Dr. Robbins did but AP claims that KQ was not the guy in the cab, so that makes the point moot.

As for the eight year-old, I have no clue as to who he is or was or who he ID’ed.

SFPD wanted nothing to do with me from 2001-2. I worked with ABC. ABC reportedly got the DNA sample. DNA is irrelevant to me because KQ would have known about saliva testing unrelated to DNA in the 1960s. Knowing that fact it is interesting to me that Z, whether he be an individual or a duet, didn’t lick his stamps and envelopes.

I was told in no uncertain terms whatsoever to walk away from KQ after the DNA didn’t match in 2002. I was going to do so but my friends told me not to quit and to keep digging. Look at how all that worked out when I stuck around and probed beneath the surface of this DNA. SFPD ended up distancing itself from it as a sample that could exclude people in 2009 after Debbie came along. But in 2002, they thought the DNA was the be all end all.

Mike

I wouldn’t completely walk away from a suspect due to a non writing match specifically but would certainly would put a lot of weight into it.

Zodiac, whomever he was, had done very specific writing habits that he did as habit,and I think would be easy to spot with enough writing samples.

I been trying to think on this thread, as readers can no doubt see, of just what would explain the discrepancies in D.F & A.P’s account aswell as why Fouke would lie about last seeing the suspect going ‘North on Maple’ when it was in fact North on a driveway to a house and, after thinking about this at some length today, here is what I believe happened on that night, followed by listing the reasons why this scenario makes absolute sense.

Fouke and Zelms approach Maple and spot the White Male. They believe, at this point, their suspect is A Black Male and proceed up the hill and past the White male who turns left up a small group of steps and onto a pathway leading toward the door of 3712 Jackson Street. As Fouke turns left onto Cherry, he stops to speak to Armond Pelisseti who is driving, not walking, on Cherry and the two speak briefly at or near the Cherry and Jackson intersection. Armond tells Don that the suspect isn’t Black and that he himself is looking for the white male that has just gone down the street that witnesses said had a crew cut and thick horn rimmed glasses. Don replies to Armond, "Oh s*it, that was the suspect, I just passed him 5/10 seconds ago." Armond asks ‘Where?" and Don tells him "He turned onto a pathway toward the house at the intersection of Maple." Then Armond responds by taking off down Jackson in his vehicle and stops abruptly at Maple and looks across at the house and driveway and see’s the White Male standing on the driveway next to the path. Armond then calls him over and asks requests his name, and the male replies "Kjell Qvale." Armond then, realising it’s the multi millionaire vehicle tycoon asks Kjell why he’s standing alone in someone’s drive and Kjell tells Armond it’s because he just saw a man running up the street with a gun.

Now here’s why this makes sense.

1. If Don and Eric had stopped and spoke to this white male, they wouldn’t have to call him over (as Zodiac states) because they are already right there on that side if the street. However, if it’s Armond driving down from Jackson then this puts Armond and his vehicle in the right hand lane on the opposite side of the street from 3712 and would need to call him over to speak to him.

2. As many members will probably know, I’ve asked the question on threads prior to this one just why it would be that Armond chooses to walk down Cherry and Jackson instead of drive and this is for several reasons. First, he knows Pauls been shot in the head and so the suspect is armed and dangerous and is willing to murder so to walk after him on foot just seems far too dangerous. Armond also knows that the guy has literally only just seconds ago left the scene and confirms this by telling Don he’s looking for the white male that has just gone down the street. Wouldn’t you stand a far better chance of catching him if your closing the gap at 30/40MPH than you would at 5?

3. The reason it makes sense for it to be Armond that speaks to the guy on the drive is because as he stops to speak with Don and Don tells him he’s just passed such a man who turned toward the house at Maple intersection is that Armond’s vehicle is on Cherry facing Jackson. Don would have to either spin around and drive back there or go around the block along Washington Street. Armond is already heading that way.

4. One thing I said in my last post, which was similar to this one, that I couldn’t understand was why, after Don passes the white male (who I strongly believe now was also Kjell Qvale) as he’s going toward the house, is why would he still be there by the time Armond walks down the hill? But if Armond was driving down Jackson, which to me I’ve always said makes far more sense for his own safety aswell as there being far better chance to catch the suspect, then no sooner has Don disappeared around the corner onto Cherry and Kjell starts walking back down the pathway, here comes another prowl car coming back from Cherry and toward him down Jackson.

5. This is the one thing that clinches it for me. I’m going to ask every reader to imagine you yourself are Armond Pelissetti on October 11th of 1969 because I want every one to tell me, at the end of this sequence, what is their answers to one question I will pose at the end. So, you Armond P, you are on your way down Cherry Street after witnesses have told you that the man responsible for this has just seconds ago gone down Cherry when you stop to speak with a fellow officer coming from that direction. You discover that this officer still believes the suspect to be a BMA, and you then tell him "No, he is A White Male, has a crew cut and wearing thick glasses." Your fellow officer then responds by saying to you, "Oh sh*t! That was the suspect we just passed a couple of seconds ago!" Now, here’s the Question: If your A.P at this point, what is the one thing your going to ask at this point when he tells you he’s just passed him? Before you read on I hope readers will themselves have an answer in their heads to see how many of us are going to give the same answer.

My answer to what is the first things I would ask if he just told me he’s passed a man fitting the description is…"Where?" Where was he when you passed him? Isn’t that what anyone is going to ask? It’s not something that you need to be LE trained in order to do, it’s simply a natural response to that kind of information. So I believe that Armond asked where, Don told him "Walking down a pathway toward 3712" and Armond sped that way himself and that is how he encountered Qvale still there because this is not likely to have happened if Armond really was on foot. Qvale isn’t going to still be there on that property after Don passes him by the time Armond walks down the street.

What do we think?

Berryessa said:

"Let’s put KQ in perspective ok. This isn’t Willie Mays, McCovey, Montana, Belli, not even OJ. if you asked the majority of SF’ers in 1969 or any time in between who was Kjell, most wouldn’t have a clue."

Ok let’s assume that despite Qvale owning many show rooms in San Francisco that nobody knew who he was. It’s not ‘anybody’ that needs to know who Kjell is in this instance it’s one man, Armond Pelissetti! And ok, lets say that Armond doesn’t recognise him initially, Armond knew his name was Kjell Qvale because he reported the encounter so Kjell would not doubt would either have given Armond his ID, or simply told him his name and his address, an address that was a few doors down which just so happens to be a mansion. Kjell not only owned 3636 Jackson, but the property next to it also. So Kjell can claim legitimate cause to be in Pacific Heights and on Jackson Street that night to dampen the cops suspicions and if you think that Armond wouldn’t know Kjell is anyone of significance after discovering he owns a mansion and the property next to it in one of the most upmarket and expensive area’s in the City of San Francisco, then that is your opinion.

And remember, Zodiac claims to have spoken to police that night and the assumption has always been that, because of Don’s testimony that he saw a white guy on Jackson, it must be him that the Zodiac is referring to. But Don from then rite up to now, ’emphatically’ denies ever speaking to him and says he didn’t stop Zodiac or anyone else and wishes Eric Zelms were alive today to tell us that. But have we overlooked the obvious because there is a police officer that responded that night who freely admits stopping and speaking to a white male and his name is Armond Pelissetti. Armond got the mans details and, once he realised that Kjell Qvale has legitimate cause to be on Jackson that night, because he owns the mansion and adjacent property just a few doors away from where he is, Armond let’s him go.

As I said I think that Zodiac did tell police he has seen a man run by waving a gun but it wasn’t only to get the cops to go away, but also to explain why it was that he’s ducked off the main street and is now standing/hiding on someone’s front drive.

The reason I asked others what would be their instant reaction to being told that a suspect had just been seen is that Don clearly states that when Armond told him it was a white, not black, male that he then told Armond he’d just seen a person match that very description and so unless Armond is incompetent beyond stupidity and common sense, which he isn’t, then he’s going to ask Don where about did he see the man? Armond is going that way because he himself is looking for this man that Don says he’s just seen, and Armond isn’t going to ask where he was when he saw him? Please!

But Armond doesn’t deny asking Don where he saw the white guy because according to Armond his fellow officer Don Fouke couldn’t be bothered to tell him he’d just seen a white male, or anyone else for that matter and Armond states "Uhh, he did not mention to me that he had seen anybody at that point, or that he’d stopped anybody." Really! Don has seen a man matching the description on Jackson St hill and doesn’t tell Armond this? BS I say and it wouldn’t make sense if this is true for Armond to then continue off Cherry and down Jackson because, according to him, Fouke has not reported anyone on this street that he’s just driven up, for which Armond is obviously aware of because see’s him coming around the corner from that direction. But, despite Don having 5 seconds ago come up that very street and reporting seeing nothing suspicious, Armond continues anyway. My BS detector is sounding it’s alarm!
I think the reason he is denying this is because he knows that if he admits Don told him this, then it becomes obvious why he proceeded down Jackson all the way to Maple looking for the white male on a driveway and that actually, he found him. Then it would become clear that it was actually now, at this point, that ‘this cop car pulled up and one of them called me over." And the reason the cop car pulls up there in the first place is because it’s driver is looking for the white male that’s just walked toward a house at the intersection, who they have now discovered cowering in the gated driveway, and then call him over. Even the way Zodiac words that it is as if the cop car knew he was there because it pulls up and a cop calls him over.

Armond claims that it was only "in subsequent conversations with him, he told me that he did stop someone." Well how convenient. This means that he only finds out after the fact and so can’t act on it at the time by dashing to 3712 on the night itself. L-O-L. See you don’t need an intellect to know this is total crap, common sense alone will tell you. Fouke doesn’t tell him on that night when it actually matters and helps, no no, he decides to say nothing to Armond at this point and then some days/weeks later Fouke decides "You know, I think i’ll tell Armond now about what I saw and drop myself right in the s*it while doing so"

Armond is trying to cover his own ass by claiming it was Fouke who spoke to Zodiac and claims that he knows this to be true because Fouke simply admitted it to him. But, once again, Armond recalls that he only told him in ‘subsequent conservations.’ Armond knows fully well it was himself that Zodiac is referring to in that letter and is deliberately try to shift the suspicion over to Fouke.

And that is also why Armond is claiming to have been on foot when on Jackson because he knows very well Zodiac specifically mentions "This cop car pulled up." What better way to establish an alibi than "Couldn’t be me, I was on foot." Total B.S! An armed and extremely dangerous man on foot has just gone down the street, a street which Armond himself states has ‘Innumerable Alcoves", and Armond rationalises that the safest way to go after him, aswell as the one with the highest odds of catching up with the suspect, is to go after him…. on foot. Absolutely laughable. Like I said, he is claiming to be on foot to eliminate himself from being the cop who spoke to Zodiac because he knows, and Zodiac confirms, he was in a vehicle. But A.P spots an opportunity! Ah! Don admits to passing a white male on Jackson, i’ll point the finger at him and say it must be him that stopped Zodiac…No, i’ll even say that Don told me he did!"

Armond admits to having stopped and spoke to someone that night but he tries to say it was a man walking a dog. No it wasn’t, and nor were you on foot! I hope he reads this and one day admits he wasn’t on foot, the man didn’t have a dog, and that you found the white male exactly where Don said he would be….in the driveway of the house at the intersection of Jackson & Maple. You called him over, not Don, because you were driving down Jackson and therefore were across the street from the house and drive. He told you who he was and said he was there in that driveway because he’d been scared by an unknown male running up the street with a gun. And you also know that because you spoke to this man and knew his identity as Kjell Qvale, that when Zodiac sent the Chronicle that letter saying a cop called him over, that he’s referring to you and if you know therefore that it’s you The Zodiac is speaking of as the cop that called him over then you also know, you cannot not know, that Kjell Qvale is the Zodiac!

Hi-

I owe WC an apology. I had not looked at that redacted document in a few months after the FBI told me that it would "not do research" for me and unredact the name if I had provided them with the correct obit for the person whose name is on that doc. When I first saw the length of the DOB box, I assumed that the name on that line could not be KQ’s because his birthday was in July and the box was so big.

I was rummaging around for a different sent of documents earlier today when I stumbled onto the doc again. I decided to take a second look. What I had not noticed earlier is that the date of Robert Hale West’s birth is written out in words on page one–"NINE TWO THIRTYFIVE." KQ’s DOB has 24 characters including spaces. The box that was redacted could contain up to 29 characters and/or spaces. Therefore, I am reversing my opinion and am now willing to say that it is not impossible that the name in the doc could be that of KQ, especially given the small box after the words "…CAB DRIVER IDENTIFIED…" on page two. I am not saying that it is but I am now not saying that I don’t believe it even could be.

The interesting thing is that when I first went to SFPD in early July 1999, Lt. Tom Bruton said that KQ’s name had "never come up in their investigation." This was clearly not true. Then in 2005, Butterfield said that Bruton had called AP and gave him a heads up that I had come knocking on SFPD’s door and was naming the man AP had spoken to on the night of the Stine murder. It must be in a report.

Why are there all these shenanigans and all this cloak and dagger subterfuge inside SFPD with respect to my work? Clearly, they were not being honest with me in 1999 when they said that KQ’s had never crossed their desks.

Mike

Hi-

Several years ago a guy started emailing me telling me that KQ did not have a dog with him that night. But I was unable in any way to establish his credibility, despite Herculean efforts to do so. We corresponded for about ten days and then he disappeared into the ether. I have his email address and LE could track him down if they cared enough to get a warrant. But they don’t, so it remains a mystery.

Mike

Hi-

I owe WC an apology. I had not looked at that redacted document in a few months after the FBI told me that it would "not do research" for me and unredact the name if I had provided them with the correct obit for the person whose name is on that doc. When I first saw the length of the DOB box, I assumed that the name on that line could not be KQ’s because his birthday was in July and the box was so big.

I was rummaging around for a different sent of documents earlier today when I stumbled onto the doc again. I decided to take a second look. What I had not noticed earlier is that the date of Robert Hale West’s birth is written out in words on page one–"NINE TWO THIRTYFIVE." KQ’s DOB has 24 characters including spaces. The box that was redacted could contain up to 29 characters and/or spaces. Therefore, I am reversing my opinion and am now willing to say that it is not impossible that the name in the doc could be that of KQ, especially given the small box after the words "…CAB DRIVER IDENTIFIED…" on page two. I am not saying that it is but I am now not saying that I don’t believe it even could be.

The interesting thing is that when I first went to SFPD in early July 1999, Lt. Tom Bruton said that KQ’s name had "never come up in their investigation." This was clearly not true. Then in 2005, Butterfield said that Bruton had called AP and gave him a heads up that I had come knocking on SFPD’s door and was naming the man AP had spoken to on the night of the Stine murder. It must be in a report.

Why are there all these shenanigans and all this cloak and dagger subterfuge inside SFPD with respect to my work? Clearly, they were not being honest with me in 1999 when they said that KQ’s had never crossed their desks.

Mike

No Apology needed Mike. I read an article about Qvale a few days ago and he lists as a fond memory that when he was 10, a driver who worked for a yellow cab company used to take Kjell on some of his pick ups and would allow him to sit on the drivers knee and steer the cab. I also read a quote from Kjell on two articles where he describes his first encounter with a British vehicle and states the car looked ‘Goofy.’ He was quoted using another Zodiac like phrase also but I cant recall now what it was he said.

Few months back I read that sometime in the early 2000’s, two SFPD homicide detectives decided that they would work the Zodiac case and got the files from storage. When the Chief of SFPD was informed of this, he went ballistic and ordered them to work on current cases (well that makes sense given the limited manpower). But then these two detectives decided that this case was important enough to them that they decided to work it on their own time and both got together many nights to go over the case and it’s files. The Chief was again made aware of this and this time he threatened the two that if they don’t leave this case alone and forget about it, he’ll have them transferred or even worse, let go. The two only came forward recently because they are now retired and specifically stated that they can say this now without fear that coming forward to say this can jepordise their career’s.

I’ve never once had happen what just happened. I went back to page 11 of this thread before clicking to return to page 12. When I did it kept telling me that there was a server error and to contact a administrator if it persists. It wouldn’t let me onto this page and this has never happened before. Anyone else have any problems?

So going back to a question asked earlier – are there any handwriting samples available for KQ? Yes, it’s just one of manŷ pieces of evidence but that’s why we are all here – to sift through and analyse available evidence.

I for one have never seen any of Qvale’s writing apart from his autograph and I’d be really interested to see it.

Hi-

He called my ideas "Goofy," too. I thought the next thing you’d say is that Z said that the two cops had "pulled a goof," which is a very unusual statement.

Mike