In thinking about OWK’s question about the likelihood that Fouke and Zelms actually encountered Zodiac, this question came to mind:
Was this encounter made public at all prior to Fouke’s written memo?

What’s public? Public in-the-newspapers public, or "known about in the SFPD" public, or ….?
I personally do NOT think that Zodiac referring to the 2 cops is proof that he was there. Especially not so long after the fact…..
Now – a piece of shirt with blood on it? That’s another thing entirely.

Entropy – 13 instead of 69? Yes, that’s, err, odd. Beware.

Back to topic – the second sketch has been "aged" to include age lines and wrinkles on the face and neck and that receding hairline – the primary purpose for re-visiting it. No?

Newspaper public… If an encounter with two cops after the murder was not in the newspapers and not even officially documented by the two cops themselves, Z would presumably be guessing that this occurred and risk looking like an even bigger liar. He is adamant about making this encounter known to everyone, twice asking that it be printed in the SF Chronicle to embarrass police. In this case, telling the truth actually serves his taunting agenda. It’s not solid proof but I think it supports the assertion that he was indeed the guy Fouke encountered.

I don’t get the logic, here.
He knew Fouke and Zelms stopped someone (well no, according to Fouke, they didn’t) – the fact that they stopped someone wasn’t in their reports or in the newspapers (well, perhaps because it’s true, they didn’t) – but because he alleges that they did, he must be the guy they saw.
Eh?

It’s not really a matter of whether he was actually stopped, smithy. He could be lying about that part to embarrass Fouke or Fouke could be lying about it to avoid embarrassment. Who knows? Just saying that if Z is making reference to an encounter with police that was not public knowledge, it likely means that he was the individual that the Fouke memo is referring to. Clearly one of their accounts of this encounter is not 100% accurate but Fouke’s eyewitness description would still be worth considering.

The fact that the man Fouke saw was virtually identical to the man the kids saw should really make the matter beyond all dispute.

The fact that the man Fouke saw was virtually identical to the man the kids saw should really make the matter beyond all dispute.

I Agree!

The fact that the man Fouke saw was virtually identical to the man the kids saw should really make the matter beyond all dispute.

Entropy statement was dead on. (Just adding this in since I skipped past his post)

The only thing I would say about your post is : age.

Soze

Thanks for that ‘in’ Soze. Mike R was listing some things on another thread within the last few days, sorry I’m being lazy and not linking to it but I will at some point if needed. Wasn’t sure the thing I wanted to ask was relevant to that thread and I’m not sure it’s strictly relevant here but as I said, thank you for the in lol.

One of the things Mike listed/mentioned in the point he was making was the ‘pleated pants’. Why did Fouke mention that? By that I mean, what exactly was the context? I believe, and IIRC, he was inferring that they were old fashioned in regards to the styles of the time, but what was the context of that statement in regards to the person wearing them?

If he was strictly saying that the pants were old fashioned then is he possibly using this as a method to assist in giving a possible age to the suspect? Does this imply that he perhaps didn’t get a good enough look at the guy’s face to age him accurately? What is the context? Someone wearing pants that were too dated for him or the pants were dated? It’s the pants that were dated, yes? From what I’ve read that’s how it appears, there’s no intermediary information to correlate that to the appearance or perceived age of the person wearing them.

So, does the emphasis on clothing style/age in Fouke’s description imply that he wouldn’t be the best source to suggest age from the suspects face? I don’t know but that’s why I’m asking for other’s opinions.

Is 35 considered old? Of course, this was Fouke’s lower guesstimate of age. (35-45)

"Possibly graying" hair could account for the older age of 45. If it WASN’T the lighting causing the effect (as Fouke puts it) I bet Fouke would go with the younger version.

Also, I have recently thrown out the SFPD report the night of Stine’s killing, and a WITNESS description is EARLY 40’S.

The composite comes out…it’s too young, and according to the teens THEY partake in the revision…an older man.

One of the things Mike listed/mentioned in the point he was making was the ‘pleated pants’. Why did Fouke mention that? By that I mean, what exactly was the context? I believe, and IIRC, he was inferring that they were old fashioned in regards to the styles of the time, but what was the context of that statement in regards to the person wearing them?

If he was strictly saying that the pants were old fashioned then is he possibly using this as a method to assist in giving a possible age to the suspect? Does this imply that he perhaps didn’t get a good enough look at the guy’s face to age him accurately? What is the context? Someone wearing pants that were too dated for him or the pants were dated? It’s the pants that were dated, yes? From what I’ve read that’s how it appears, there’s no intermediary information to correlate that to the appearance or perceived age of the person wearing them.

So, does the emphasis on clothing style/age in Fouke’s description imply that he wouldn’t be the best source to suggest age from the suspects face? I don’t know but that’s why I’m asking for other’s opinions.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I have no idea whether pleated pants would imply "outdated" but I honestly don’t understand why there seems to be such a willingness to dismiss Fouke’s observations. If he was able to describe Z’s pants in such detail, why wouldn’t he be able to give an informed description of how old he looked? His age observation is clearly an outlier and might well be wrong. It is what it is but my point has always been that Fouke was probably in the best position of any Zodiac eyewitness to offer a detailed description and his description is quite detailed:

http://zodiackiller.com/FoukeReport.html

"Dressed in dark blue waist length zipper type jacket (Navy or royal blue) Elastic cuffs and waist band zipped part way up. Brown wool pants pleated type baggy in rear (Rust brown) May have been wearing low cut shoes"

Fouke was closer than Mageau without a flashlight shining in his face or in fear for his life and could be considered a more reliable witness.
Hartnell was unfortunately unable to give any detailed physical description due to the costume and the PH teens were viewing from much further away. I don’t dismiss their input at all but they were simply not able to give the kind of detail that Fouke gives in his memo. Even if we dismiss Zodiac’s claim of a verbal exchange, he was still in very close proximity for a number of seconds and had the best view of any living witness.

E., I don’t mean to quibble, but "… if Z is making reference to an encounter with police that was not public knowledge, it likely means that he was the individual that the Fouke memo is referring to.."
Uh, no. It means the guy who wrote the letter had access to information which wasn’t public knowledge. That’s it.

Nacht: "The fact that the man Fouke saw was virtually identical to the man the kids saw should really make the matter beyond all dispute."
….and yet the drawing was re-done to emphasise the differences between the two descriptions. Hmmm.

E., I don’t mean to quibble, but "… if Z is making reference to an encounter with police that was not public knowledge, it likely means that he was the individual that the Fouke memo is referring to.."
Uh, no. It means the guy who wrote the letter had access to information which wasn’t public knowledge. That’s it.

If we go by Fouke’s statements in later years, apparently it wasn’t police knowledge either.

Fouke basically said he didn’t tell investigators about the Jackson house "let them figure it out".

So we are left with WTF did Fouke tell them the night of Stine’s murder…or even the few days after. No doubt Fouke got a better look, but WHEN did he provide his description BEFORE the memo?

T., well!
One of the kids followed the perp away from the scene and north on Cherry, it’s been said. By Pellisetti, I think. It would be logical then, perhaps, to believe he would go into the park to avoid capture – so searching there …? Fine by me. Some say Fouke tipped everyone off to the idea that he went into the park, but I don’t think he’s ever said so, has he. That’s a presumption. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn’t!
(That statement on the tape about letting them "figure it out" is just bizarre…..)

The memo is very odd. The wording’s not what I would expect from a police officer. He writes about himself in the third person! I mean, wtf?

…Some say Fouke tipped everyone off to the idea that he went into the park, but I don’t think he’s ever said so, has he. That’s a presumption. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn’t!

He wrote it in the memo.

Indeed.
"The memo is very odd. The wording’s not what I would expect from a police officer. He writes about himself in the third person! I mean, wtf?"
…or does that just make me sound like a bit of a conspiracy theorist nut job?

T., well!
One of the kids followed the perp away from the scene and north on Cherry, it’s been said. By Pellisetti, I think

I don’t think that’s correct. It was Palisetti that mentioned that when he got to the scene, the kids or at least one of them was walking up to the cab,and he stopped them.

T., well!
One of the kids followed the perp away from the scene and north on Cherry, it’s been said. By Pellisetti, I think

I don’t think that’s correct. It was Palisetti that mentioned that when he got to the scene, the kids or at least one of them was walking up to the cab,and he stopped them.

IIRC one of the kids went to the corner and watched Zodiac walk away and turn onto Jackson. Not totally follow and that’s where Pellisetti encountered him and ushered him and the other kids back into their house or at least away from the crime scene. Mike R posted this info based on interviews with the kids, witnesses, years later. It was quite detailed and very informative.