I just thought about the FBI document and the wording of it that "Eight year old witness identified *Blank* as possible suspect in this matter." We’ve all theorised that some kid must have seen Zodiac somewhere that night or that one of the three at Washington told police that they thought they recognised him as he is at the cab. Thinking now that the likelihood was that it was Armond who drive back to 3712 and saw the man there on the drive and as Mike states ‘Armond said he kept this man (Qvale) around’, it’s obvious what they would have done! The eight year old did not know who Zodiac was, and didn’t recognise him while seeing him at the cab either. The Document says that the eight year old ‘Identified’ *blank* as possible subject, key word there: Identified. Armond kept Kjell there for a while as either Peda went back to the three witnesses, or radioed another unit, to ask one of the three kids if they could recognise the man they saw again and when one says he could, is asked to jump in the patrol car and told the kid that they are going to drive him around the block and if at any time he see’s the man who he saw at the cab, point him out. The kid gets to Maple where Pelissetti is waiting with Kjell and the kid see’s Kjell with Pelissetti and instantly points saying "That’s him there."

How else could police determine that this kid had positively ID’d anyone unless he was shown a suspect? They simply couldn’t. The Document would say "Eight year old thought he recognised *blank* as subject in cab driver murder" if he simply told police he thought he recognised him. To say The Eight year old Identified someone is to suggest he did so to police after being asked to come view a suspect.

This again is why Zodiac probably wrote so quickly two days later announcing "School Children make nice targets" because he knew that one of the kids who witnessed the the killer at the crime scene had been driven to Maple where Pelissetti was holding him in order to bring the kid around to see if he could ID him. It was Qvale, I’m absolutely positive!

Or Armond has pulled up, got out and called Kjell over from the driveway and put Kjell into the back of his car and driven him back around to the scene where the kids were and the kid is asked as the police car stops in front of him "Is that him?" and he replies "Yes, that’s the man who just left the cab." This is the only way the police could state that a witness had ‘Identified’ someone as the suspect. Couldn’t possibly have shown the kids photos of suspects because nobody knew who Zodiac was so that’s out. Couldn’t have been that the kid or kids simply said they thought they recognised the man at the cab because the police wouldn’t and couldn’t consider this, and then word it as, witness identified *blank* as possible subject. For them to write this in the document they must have somehow either shown the kid a line up, or he’d been asked to look at someone they had apprehended on the night it happened and the eight year old told them "That’s him."

But, despite saying all this, can’t prove any of it with evidence. So it’s just another theory I suppose. :-/

Welsh Stated….

"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!"

And both Fouke and Armand know who this mystery man is, and they both say "to hell with all those families this guy has killed, we have to protect him, cause he may sell us a car someday"? Now that deserves a giant 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!

The entire questioning on the video to Armand is weak. We shouldn’t have any questions remaining after 44 years, not as far as the cops movements and timing are concerned. The easiest question to have asked Armand would have been. "So you meet up with Fouke at Cherry/Jackson, and he says nothing to you about the white guy he just passed by when heading west on Jackson. And then you say you had a decision to make, which way to go. Wouldn’t the decision to head east on Jackson be the least plausible since Fouke had just come from that direction and reported nothing to you?" Simple question. "And now since you see Fouke is continuing west on Jackson, doesn’t that leave you really only one unchartered direction to go, to continue north on Cherry?" Again very simple question, which would rebuff what Armand is saying….
I doubt Fouke got into detail of the address to Armand, they both say their meeting was very short, not even sure at that point Fouke could re-cite the address. I could see Fouke stating, as he said, "F I just passed a white guy down the block". I can’t think of any reason why Fouke wouldn’t tell Armand that. Since now they both know they’re dealing with an armed killer.

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.
Arm

The "they" that you cite who called Z over to the car, that would mean 2 in the car. You suggesting that Armand and Peda then were in the car, leaving no car at the scene, and no cops either? C’mon, be serious…I dont get the driveway, what driveway? Neither Fouke nor Pellessetti ever mention a driveway. Where you getting this driveway from?

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!"

So Fouke’s is confused that Armand was on foot? Armand takes the only cop car at the scene, and leaves Peda there. But Z refers to cops, and one of them spoke to him. so that means Peda went with Armand? And so Armand never gives a description of the guy he spoke with, except that it was an older gentlemen, skinnier then the kid’s description, and he was heading from Washington direction north on Maple walking his dog. And Armand does all this to protect KQ? Again C’mon….

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!

In order to believe what you say here, you have to admit that Fouke’s is also confused, cause he saw Armand on foot. Armand doesn’t "try" to say it was a man walking his dog, he states it pretty clearly. Then you state Armand wasn’t on foot. Well Fouke for one disagrees with you. So what we have is just locked in on a suspect, no matter what, it has to be this way and this way only. And if we have to invent scenarios with no backing, so be it, guilty as charged. Sorry, I don’t buy this reasoning at all. Went through this 5 years ago, the posts are still there on TV’s site. talk about ridiculous scenarios, and just outright story telling about where KQ lived, supposedely on Maple back then, had Z changing his clothes not once, but twice, but now I read no he really lived down on Jackson 3/4’s of the way to Spruce. Well that eliminates the dog, so we just eliminate that. What about the composite???? No one ever mentioned or had the composite made up to show Z with a rather large nose. Not only was KQ’s nose large, it was broken to boot. That kind of stands out to me. But didn’t to any of the eyewitnesses. I have many questions for Armand I’d love to ask him based on what I’ve heard him say, against what he has written, same with Fouke.

Mike R. Stated……

"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."

We know Bruton was in charge like 18 months. He has stated that during his tenure, the Z case was on auto pilot. He received a handful of calls during his tenure, and they were the typical Z BS. How would Butterfield KNOW what Bruton did? Bruton would tell him I guess. Yeah that makes no sense. Why would either Bruton or AP care what you or I thought? Can you prove it? Were you there? you got pictures? You have proof, real proof? No, No and No, so why would Bruton call AP, and then tell Butterfield? Maybe they’re all just jerking you around Mike for kicks. I really don’t think they’d waste their time.

Hey Bay Area-

Butterfield spoke to AP on 6/5/2006 (I keep notes) and it was he who said that Bruton contacted AP after I came along and asked him about the encounter with the dog walker. So if you have issues with that statement, don’t come at me with your talons bared, go to Butterfield.

Bruton didn’t know anything about the case, so the only way he could possibly have learned that AP encountered KQ is that there is a report somewhere in SFPD to that effect. I’ve asked about it but have always gotten the cold shoulder.

Here is a theory: For forty years, SFPD has been mildly embarrassed by the fact that Fouke and Zelms may have encountered Z while looking for a black man, possibly stopped and spoke to him, but then let him go. That story is not all that bad because they were not looking for a white male at the time, so why be suspicious of that guy, who looked like he fit nicely into the neighborhood? But consider how embarrassing it would be for not only AP (who openly expressed that the consequences of my being right would be to make him look pretty damn stupid) but for SFPD if AP had stopped and spoken to Z that night (regardless of the fact that AT THAT TIME they would not have been looking at a wealthy resident of PH as the cab robber, or later as Z, as even I would agree) and simply let him go! Then some complete idiot from NJ comes along 30 years later and ID’s the very guy AP spoke to and starts building a rudimentary case starting with the fact that in 1947 this man liked seeing his name in the newspapers. Sort of like pre-Zodiac behavior. Hmmmmm……. We are talking major embarrassment in 1999. Can you see the headlines, "SFPD Stopped and Spoke to Zodiac On Night of Cab Driver Murder and Let Him Go." Extra, extra. Read all about it! Maybe that is why they decided to yank my chain.

And Bay Area, please tone down your sarcasm. I don’t appreciate it.

For the record, AP was asked if KQ was the guy in the cab and he said it was not. Keeping things real….

Mike

For Mr. Rodelli….

I apologize, having not read all your posts over all the years you’ve pursued leads into the KQ connection, but what have you done to secure handwriting samples of his, and were you at all successful?

Being a prominent businessman in the decades before computers, KQ’s handwriting would be all over the place, I’d assume.

Again, apologies if this is asking you to repeat/beat any dead horses….

Mike R.

"Butterfield spoke to AP on 6/5/2006 (I keep notes) and it was he who said that Bruton contacted AP after I came along and asked him about the encounter with the dog walker. So if you have issues with that statement, don’t come at me with your talons bared, go to Butterfield.

I don’t have any talons bared. It seems from what I read here that would be you, not me. That’s good that you keep notes on when Butterifeld tells you another contacted him. Again, what would make anyone think there is reliability in someone saying "Hey AP called me and said Bruton called him, etc. etc…..AP is a cop, not involved in the least in the investigation. Armand had written his statements decades ago. So based on no evidence to the contrary, why would Bruton bother AP in the first place?

"Bruton didn’t know anything about the case, so the only way he could possibly have learned that AP encountered KQ is that there is a report somewhere in SFPD to that effect. I’ve asked about it but have always gotten the cold shoulder."

Not the only way at all that Bruton could have heard of the story. He may have received a phone call and was told this story, without any evidence of this being true. He’d blow it off. Why was Butterfield calling Bruton to begin with, If it wasn’t for this conversation? So Butterfield calls Bruton and presents this to him, without any evidence, and Bruton blows him off. He doesn’t’ call Armand at all. Armand doesn’t call Butterfield at all, and Butterfield calls you. Isn’t that a possibility? Z called the encounter "they and one of the cops spoke to him", that would mean Armand was in his car????, with Peda???? and they left the crime scene unattended????

"Here is a theory: For forty years, SFPD has been mildly embarrassed by the fact that Fouke and Zelms may have encountered Z while looking for a black man, possibly stopped and spoke to him, but then let him go. That story is not all that bad because they were not looking for a white male at the time, so why be suspicious of that guy, who looked like he fit nicely into the neighborhood? But consider how embarrassing it would be for not only AP (who openly expressed that the consequences of my being right would be to make him look pretty damn stupid) but for SFPD if AP had stopped and spoken to Z that night (regardless of the fact that AT THAT TIME they would not have been looking at a wealthy resident of PH as the cab robber, or later as Z, as even I would agree) and simply let him go! Then some complete idiot from NJ comes along 30 years later and ID’s the very guy AP spoke to and starts building a rudimentary case starting with the fact that in 1947 this man liked seeing his name in the newspapers. Sort of like pre-Zodiac behavior. Hmmmmm……. We are talking major embarrassment in 1999. Can you see the headlines, "SFPD Stopped and Spoke to Zodiac On Night of Cab Driver Murder and Let Him Go." Extra, extra. Read all about it! Maybe that is why they decided to yank my chain. "

Fouke writes no script ever if Z doesn’t write his in Nov. ’69. Fouke’s writes no script unless called in to do so. And of course the script must denounce speaking with Z, and Fouke has always been adamant about that. I, have to proof to discount that. I know about Eric’s widow, and if she had ever made her statement’s public, I’d be the first to say, "Well Don what do you say to that?" Since she hasn’t, I only have Don’s word on it. There was another reason though for Don’ not writing a report, and this is the embarrassment for Don, that he admits to today. And that was to place Z where Don didn’t see him, cause otherwise it makes the entire search in the park a waste of time. Don has admitted now that he "assumed" that’s where Z headed. No way he could say that in 1969. It doesn’t matter now. Don was never afraid of addressing whether or not he spoke with Z, but he doesn’t write anything about his encounter, cause he’s the one person responsible for the search happening in the park. And if that had come out at the time all hell would have
broken loose. From the time that Fouke’s left Z standing at 3712 Jackson, until Fouke’s is approaching the other side of Maple on Pacific is a total of about 40 seconds.

And Bay Area, please tone down your sarcasm. I don’t appreciate it.

No sarcasm here Mike. Just questioning non proven statements by you. It’s one thing to have theories, we all do, it’s another to lambast a cop without any evidence of what you’re stating to be true. And then to add the only explanation for your theory, is your reasoning. Well it’s just your theory, so yeah, you can have any explanation you wish. No one, No one, including you has any idea who AP saw that night. According to you these cops give you no credibility whatsoever. Maybe this is why?

"For the record, AP was asked if KQ was the guy in the cab and he said it was not. Keeping things real…."

For the record??? Keeping things real??? I’ve read nothing from AP on the record, regarding KQ, so there is no record. And that sure isn’t keepin it real….You just stating "For the record", doesn’t give it accountability. How would AP know who was in the cab? He didn’t see the guy in the cab… Isn’t that obvious? Who would even ask him a question that is impossible for him to answer? And now that’s part of a record? who asked AP such a question? Seriously, was it you? I’m sure I’m not alone in wanting to know where this record came from. You made the statement, all’s I’m asking is that you back it up.

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?

I’ve had things happen before, it has been a while, not specifically what you encountered. I would think at the time maybe Morf or someone is updatng something on the site, and it would always seem to go away.

Welsh stated….

"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."

You ran 4 sentences of your opinion ,and end it with "then that’s my opinion". We forget about the cabbie? who saw Z enter Stine’s cab. Cabbie’s are noted for knowing all the who’s who in the City. So he wouldn’t recognize KQ?, the kids would never see KQ in the news, and say hey that’s the guy, and Fouke’s ditto. The problem with your theory is it is only that. The fact that KQ has 2 houses on Jackson, doesn’t put him outside in the street at all, let alone to be Z. Then we are to accept another theory, and that is for no known reason, AP runs cover for KQ as Zodiac.

At some point fact has to be interjected into a theory, or you have one theory supported by another, then another, and no facts to back up your theory. We know Z states "cops, one of the cops" asks him if he saw anyone. Well if the cop is AP, then he needs a partner, for Z’s statement to be true. Somehow Z knew "cops" could be supported. Fouke never saw a partner with AP, and never saw AP in a squad car, cause those are theories presented here that fly in the face of the facts.

Just my 2 cents, but I think z was NOT familiar with that location where Stine was shot, and did not live there. In the logbook, Z told Stine to go to Washington & Maple. Stine went there, and for some unknown reason, went down a block further, possibly because Z told him to go one block further, maybe because they saw somebody. When Z writes the letter taking responsibility for Stine’s murder, he does NOT reference Washington & Cherry where the murder happened, but rather Washington & Maple(same as the logbook). To me, this points to Z not knowing the name of the street where the murder actually happened, and thus, not being from around there. This to me would rule out guys like X in my mind,not that I have ever thought he was zodiac.

For some unknown reason, Z had Stine go to that scene at Washinton & Maple. He had pre-selected it for some reason. Maybe somebody lived around there that he wanted to scare or shock? Maybe he was house sitting? Maybe he just liked the quick escape to the presidio if something went wrong? No matter the reason, to me, it shows he did not know Cherry st. Further supporting this in my mind, is that when the crime was over, and he walked onto Jackson, he headed right back towards Washington & Maple. He had some reason to go to that area.

Hi-

Butterfield spoke to Pelissetti. I never said he spoke to Bruton. AP said that he spoke to KQ but didn’t want Butterfield to let me know that he did. AP called me two years earlier and said that my suspect "had an alibi" but left me twisting in the wind. Of course, Butterfield turned around and immediately called me to tell me what AP had said to him. (His duplicity can swing both ways!) AP never stated to me that he was providing KQ with his alibi, just that KQ "had an alibi." Since when do the police give suspects there alibis?

Bay, AP confirmed in writing to Jim Dean in 2007 that he spoke to KQ. That is not even in doubt. BTW, I never make a false statement to back up my ideas because it is a waste of time.

There is very little of KQ’s handwriting available that I have been able to find. The only sample I have is in all upper case and is crammed in because it is on a form. The analyst I sent it to could not match it to Z’s writing but both the possible spaciness and lower case letters were unavailable to him…

Bay, my ideas make sense not only to me but to a guy who works with police departments from across the country to help solve cold cases for a living. This guy is a MUCH tougher critic than anyone on a message board.

Why don’t you call up AP and ask him the questions you want me to answer for him? How did he know who was in the back of the cab? I don’t know. Maybe the fact that he was on the scene that night and later handled the Z case as a Homicide Inspector years later gave him that knowledge. But we put the question to him and he gave us an answer. We didn’t say, "Why should we believe you?" I assumed he answered because he knew the answer. You can find his number if you look hard enough. That is how I found it.

Mike

Just my 2 cents, but I think z was NOT familiar with that location where Stine was shot, and did not live there. In the logbook, Z told Stine to go to Washington & Maple. Stine went there, and for some unknown reason, went down a block further, possibly because Z told him to go one block further, maybe because they saw somebody. When Z writes the letter taking responsibility for Stine’s murder, he does NOT reference Washington & Cherry where the murder happened, but rather Washington & Maple(same as the logbook). To me, this points to Z not knowing the name of the street where the murder actually happened, and thus, not being from around there. This to me would rule out guys like X in my mind,not that I have ever thought he was zodiac.

For some unknown reason, Z had Stine go to that scene at Washinton & Maple. He had pre-selected it for some reason. Maybe somebody lived around there that he wanted to scare or shock? Maybe he was house sitting? Maybe he just liked the quick escape to the presidio if something went wrong? No matter the reason, to me, it shows he did not know Cherry st. Further supporting this in my mind, is that when the crime was over, and he walked onto Jackson, he headed right back towards Washington & Maple. He had some reason to go to that area.

Bam! Just when you think you’re convinced of something, someone comes along and makes a salient point that throws a pretty big monkey wrench into your thinking….

I get to places where I think it’s safe to disregard most of the letter content as silly, misdirectional gobbledygook, then there is a point made about some phrase like "…over by Washington St. + Maple St. last night…." It does smack as the phrasing of someone who is not tied to the neighborhood in any way. For a long time, I thought Zodiac had a current military ID in 1969 and stashed his car somewhere in the Presidio, hopped into that area, and drove away unscathed. His ID would have gotten him onto and off the base without suspicion. (Or was it an open base back then, as most US military posts were in the Vietnam era?) Maybe he parked his car nearer the Maple St. access, and that’s why he knew that street. Maybe when the cab got to Washington and Maple he told Stine, "Go another block" instead of "Go up to Cherry, please." So maybe you’re right Zodiac had only scouted out the neighborhood because inside the Presidio there was good cover for his car in that neck of the woods.

Anyway……. back to having absolutely no certainty at all about this case!

Morf Stated….

"Just my 2 cents, but I think z was NOT familiar with that location where Stine was shot, and did not live there. In the logbook, Z told Stine to go to Washington & Maple. Stine went there, and for some unknown reason, went down a block further, possibly because Z told him to go one block further, maybe because they saw somebody. When Z writes the letter taking responsibility for Stine’s murder, he does NOT reference Washington & Cherry where the murder happened, but rather Washington & Maple(same as the logbook). To me, this points to Z not knowing the name of the street where the murder actually happened, and thus, not being from around there. This to me would rule out guys like X in my mind,not that I have ever thought he was zodiac.

You know Morf I thought the same thing for decades when reading Z’s reference to "over by Maple/Washington"……That it showed he may not have been so familiar with the area. Then one evening a couple years ago I was reading that statement again, and it just jumped out me. I think why Z wrote it that way is to reference Stine’s Log Book, so there would be no confusion that the one who shot Stine was also the one who originally sent Stine to that location..

For some unknown reason, Z had Stine go to that scene at Washinton & Maple. He had pre-selected it for some reason. Maybe somebody lived around there that he wanted to scare or shock? Maybe he was house sitting? Maybe he just liked the quick escape to the presidio if something went wrong? No matter the reason, to me, it shows he did not know Cherry st. Further supporting this in my mind, is that when the crime was over, and he walked onto Jackson, he headed right back towards Washington & Maple. He had some reason to go to that area."

It seems like it was Z’s intention to go to Maple/Washington and something made him change his mind. I’ve always had a hard time imagining it would be anyone’s idea to escape into the Presidio. It was staffed 24/7 with MP’s. I know I personally walked through the Presidio maybe 50 times, and was never stopped by anyone, so I realize it was an open Base, more open then any other I’d ever been through. But to think of that as a place to escape to after shooting someone I don’t know. And we know that Presidio Staff was sent over to Julius Kahn Park Area to assist SFPD in the search for Z. So Staff was there on the ready to serve.