Even if LE knew that Perez was mistaken about the glasses they still were obligated to speak with her because she also claimed that her father made her write some of the Zodiac letter. Each claim would have been considered and investigated separately.

Plus, they couldn’t come out and say "we know you are lying about the glasses because we have them"(if they did in fact have them)

I was also wondering why LE would give Deborah P. two seconds of their time if they had Paul’s glasses. She claimed to have them in her possession. LE investigated and discovered they were not Paul’s, but continued investigating other claims made by her.

If they had his glasses, they’d know she was full of it from the get-go. It would seem…

Did they really give her 2 seconds? It was her on the steps holding a press conference. Didn’t see any cops there. I forget now, did they even respond to her?

Yes. From all accounts I have read they met with her and took the glasses in as "evidence" and tested them. There are quotes from officers. For whatever it’s worth.

So then one can only conclude, if that’s true, SFPD not only does not have Stine’s glasses, they do not know what happened to them. Ergo, because Stine needed his glasses to drive and there’s no evidence he didn’t or that he wore contacts, his glasses "vanished" from the scene.

Really, if what you say is accurate, and I’m not labeling you a fabulist, then there’s no other reasonable interpretation, unless SFPD is totally and grossly ignorant of their own cold case.

All I know is what is in articles on the internet. Could be bs via reporters or cops, or it could be true. Like everything else with this case.

"According to accounts of the crime, Stine’s body was missing his eyeglasses when he was found."
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Wom … 162785.php

Police say no to Zodiac daughter claim

"But investigation determined the glasses didn’t belong to Stine, said Kevin Jones, an inspector in the San Francisco Police Department’s homicide bureau. Jones handles the Zodiac case."

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/pere … jones.html

***

It could just be wording and/or they are holding back that info – like I said…"for what it’s worth".

Laypeople have connections inside SFPD. Why don’t they ever ask them about the glasses? You’d think that would be in the top five of most important questions to broach.

Where’s the documentation for Stine’s watch? Is that listed somewhere?

Doesn’t appear to be. The ROD lists a ring, keys or a key (his house keys, presumably), a check book and various other papers (not specified).

No watch – but he’s evidently wearing one.

As for Perez, I agree that’s a good point. But it’s hard to say precisely what that business amounts to.

Perhaps they didn’t actually test her glasses. If they do have Stine’s glasses and want to keep using them to filter out crackpots and whatnot, then it makes sense to serve Perez a lie about having done a test.

If they had flat out refused to test her glasses, that might have backfired – she could have made a big song and dance about them not taking her seriously, etc.

I don’t think they have his glasses, and I cannot imagine why they’d keep them. They have no forensic or evidentiary value, AFAICT.

What make & model of car was the cab?

The images we have aren’t going to tell us anything about what we are looking at. I’m thinking if we have the m&m and try and find clearer interior images of the same it will at least give us a better reference point. Help us to interpret the ‘shapes’ we think are seeing in the images.

I don’t think they have his glasses, and I cannot imagine why they’d keep them. They have no forensic or evidentiary value, AFAICT.

Me either. It doesn’t really make sense even if you speculate they were doing it to assist in some way the ‘perps’ capture. IF the were there then they would have been treated as part of the scene objects or not (the watch for instance). It’s just too convoluted to imagine that they came up with the idea to ‘say’ they were missing and ensure they weren’t documented when for all intents and purposes this was just a cabbie robbery gone bad.

The taxicab was a 1968 Ford Custom Galaxie 500.
4-door, rear wheel drive,
Manufacturer: Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, Michigan – U.S.A.
Type: Galaxie 500 6 Series 54A 4-Door Sedan
Engine: 3929cc straight-6 Ford Big Six 240
Power: 152 bhp / 4.000 rpm
Speed: 157 km/h
Production time: 1968
Production outlet: 117,877
Curb weight: 1687 kg

The taxicab was a 1968 Ford Custom Galaxie 500.
4-door, rear wheel drive,

Thanks UK.

Here’s a better view of the inside

http://studiofindit.com/2014/09/02/item … usel-36042

http://studiofindit.com/2014/09/02/item … usel-36043

Well one thing’s for certain. Looking at the images we’re used to is akin to a cross between a Rorschach test and a magic eye picture. One horrible thought that’s a possibility of what we are seeing and IMSMC it’s been suggested before but what appears to be an object with an edge could, and I stress could, be a reflection in or off the blood. What we might be seeing is probably a cross over of several things. One being the shaping and bunching of the carpeting that covers the central console. Add to that the fact that its soaked in blood and that there might be a considerable blood pool at the base of that area reflecting back the section of blood soaked carpeting just above it.

Those are my preliminary thoughts on it and I know nothing about the specifics of the interiors of these cars or materials used. As far as visual interpretation is concerned I’m not seeing anything particularly anomalous that, given the circumstances under which the cab was photographed, would suggest we are looking at an object separate from the cab itself.

Here’s a quick illustration. Things to note. The angle of that ‘highlight’ seems pretty consistent with the angles of other highlights in the cab and/or possible reflection points. I’m not suggesting were seeing a reflection of the belt clasp or even the seat but if it is either a reflection or even a highlight of an edge it’s quite consistent with the angles of other edges of things in the cab.

The other thing is the contested area itself. I have placed a grey dot over the highlight to show that the areas beside it, visually at least, are not inconsistent with just blood trailing on the interior carpeting. I could ‘interpret’ more but I think this is enough for now.

The object surely looks like a pair of glasses but not the particular ones seen in the photos of Stine. These appear to be sunglasses which would make perfect sense taking into consideration that he was a full time driver. He probably kept them on the dash or in the visor or possibly in the glove compartment and they ended up on the floor. When you consider all that was going on in that cab during and after the murder…

Me either. It doesn’t really make sense even if you speculate they were doing it to assist in some way the ‘perps’ capture. IF the were there then they would have been treated as part of the scene objects or not (the watch for instance). It’s just too convoluted to imagine that they came up with the idea to ‘say’ they were missing and ensure they weren’t documented when for all intents and purposes this was just a cabbie robbery gone bad.

I agree, of course, that they wouldn’t have come up with such a scheme there and then – nor would they have purposely failed to document it (they didn’t count on us sitting here and scrutinizing every scrap of paper half a century into the future).

But there are other items which are not accounted for per the only paperwork we know about, including the watch. Possibly the fare book too (could be among the "various papers", granted). We know for a fact that Stine was wearing a watch – and yet it’s not listed.

They could have been a bit sloppy, pure and simple – perhaps precisely because it was just a cabbie robbery gone bad.

I’m not saying I firmly believe they have the glasses or that they decided to use them for ruling out imposters after they realized it was Z – but it’s at least a possible explanation.