Excellent work UKSpycatcher !!!
I think you found the true answer to that question that has been asked for decades, -"did DF talk to Zodiac or not?"
By the way, I always believed that DF talked to Zodiac.

Good Job! good explaination for the timeline as you show us. It’s deduction, my dear Watson!

I’m not saying this avenue is not worth looking into or questioning, but it completely clashes with Fouke’s statement from 11/12/69. He writes that he did not know if Zelms saw Z or not. He would be running a huge risk writing that if the Inspectors talked to Zelms. If Fouke is lying, he was lying since this memo,and if he did really talk to Z,then his Partner, Zelms had to cover for him.

I’m not saying this avenue is not worth looking into or questioning, but it completely clashes with Fouke’s statement from 11/12/69. He writes that he did not know if Zelms saw Z or not. He would be running a huge risk writing that if the Inspectors talked to Zelms. If Fouke is lying, he was lying since this memo,and if he did really talk to Z,then his Partner, Zelms had to cover for him.

Zelms reportedly told his wife that he and Fouke had spoken to the killer, “face to face,” and that the man was calm and answered questions.
I, no doubt, believe Zelms wife over Fouke.
And I have always been pretty suspicious concerning the killing of officer Eric Zelms, only 2 1/2 months after the Paul Stine murder, January 1, 1970.
Was he killed in a setup to silence him?

I don’t buy it. Stopping and interacting with Z, not noticing blood. Then, years later being one of the few who talked to Z and heard his voice, never admit to it, even long after retiring from the police force. No way.

MB wrote about this a while back its worth quoting for this topic.

http://www.zodiackillerfacts.com/forum/ … f=21&t=543

In a TV interview, retired SFPD Officer Armond Pelissetti had claimed that police had stopped the Zodiac that night. I asked Pelissetti if he had any first hand knowledge of that, either from that night or police reports. He said no, but that he believed he remembered that Don Fouke had confessed to him some time after that night. He then proceeded to make many statements that clearly indicated that he did not really believe that Fouke had stopped the killer than night. Pelissetti, at the beginning of our discussions, admitted that he was recovering from a serious health problem and that his memory was not all that great sometimes, so I wondered. How could he reconcile these two seemingly disparate positions? I asked him: Did Fouke confess that he stopped the Zodiac, or did he confess that he was the one who had been accused of doing so? Pelissetti admitted that was a good question, one which he could not answer. He then explained that he doubted that Fouke had stopped the killer, and did so with sincerity and cited reasons to support that conclusion. He then said he deferred to Fouke on the issue since his own memory of their discussion was incomplete and unreliable.

When I tried to explain Pelissetti’s statements to some who were already convinced that Fouke was lying, they didn’t even wait for me to finish and immediately interrupted with more cries of cover-up and conspiracy– they believed Pelissetti was just covering for Fouke. It seems to be much easier to just believe in a completely implausible and virtually laughable scenario than it is to simply accept common sense, the facts and logic. I have no doubt that this post will not change the minds of those who wish to continue calling Fouke a liar, as they are apparently addicted to fantasy and want to keep unnecessary mystery alive.

To me, an examination of the facts paints a very clear picture:

PELISSETTI on COLD CASE FILES: “The other unit stopped somebody, a white man, and asked if he had seen anything suspicious, or anybody in the area, and that person said, ‘YES, a man just ran into the Presidio.’ … The conjecture is that this was the Zodiac. Was it? I don’t know. He didn’t see any blood on that person’s clothing, and believe me, based on the crime scene, there would have been a lot of blood on that person.”

This is essentially the same story which appears in the book ZODIAC, and was the public version of the story since 1986. Anyone who read that book, and believed the author was a responsible journalist reporting the facts, would naturally assume that this version was the truth.

When I talked to Pelissetti, he said that the Zodiac replied, “No,” and that was it.

In the DVD documentaries for the film ZODIAC, Pelissetti tells a version which appears to be a combination of these two previous versions, and, in the third, he does more to implicate Fouke while still attempting to walk the thin line between accusing Fouke of incompetence and back-peddling on that very accusation.

PELISSETTI on ZODIAC DVD Docu: I spoke to Officer Fouke later that evening and I was unaware that he had stopped anybody. Black, white or any other color. However, in subsequent conversations with him, he told me that he did stop somebody… He told me he saw a man walking by and that he asked him, "Did you see anybody go by?" The person said, "No." … I believe that Fouke would have been honest, but that scratch and what he told me do not coincide. It seemed Officer Fouke, in that amount of time, felt that he had stopped the Zodiac… Well, it’s very hard to say whether he did nor not. It would be a point of conjecture at this point, and he seemed quite upset.

ZODIAC: Had a very strong ulterior motive for portraying the police as incompetent and to create doubt/confusion after police released a sketch of the killer and claimed he had left fingerprints behind at the scene. Notable fact: The Zodiac went out of his way to ridicule and embarrass police in his letter sent within two days after the Stine murder, and he even mocked police for failing to capture him. He also escalated the threats by suggesting that he was intended to attack a school bus filled with children. A killer who was so frightened by his brush with capture would not behave in this manner, most certainly after he had been stopped and briefly questioned by two police officers near the scene. The Zodiac waited almost a month before mentioning this claim about a police stop, and he buried it in the middle of the letter (although he did insist that this portion be published, further evidence that the killer was using propaganda to cast doubt on the evidence). Notable fact #2: Everyone agrees on one element of this story: The Zodiac walked North on Cherry Street, towards Jackson, and, Fouke and Zelms were in their patrol car, headed West on Jackson Street. Those who claim that Fouke is lying argue that the Zodiac must have been stopped by police because there was no other way he could have known about two policemen being in the area at that time. However, if the Zodiac was simply walking down Jackson Street as Fouke and Zelms drove by in their patrol car, he would have seen two officers in a patrol car in the area and could simply recall that detail later when he was trying to invent a story to make the police look bad.

GRAYSMITH: The book ZODIAC stated that Fouke and Zelms had stopped and talked to the killer, and offered this information without any rebuttal as if it was a proven fact. Note: this version is in keeping with Zodiac’s. Robert Graysmith’s books are not reliable sources, and, according to Fouke’s statements, he called the author to complain about this story.

HOWARD DAVIS and Diane Zelms: I called Mrs. Zelms in an attempt to confirm her statements but she did not return phone calls; based on what I know, Mrs. Zelms did not respond to requests from the makers of a feature film about the case, either. Howard Davis told a sensational story in which the LA DA’s office uncovered the hood and knife used by Zodiac while examining the possessions of a male member of the Manson family but orchestrated a massive cover-up to conceal this shocking truth. Davis cited a source within the DA’s office, and also claimed that Manson prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi had examined the evidence said to prove the Manson/Zodiac connection and endorsed this theory. In subsequent interviews, both Davis’ DA source and Bugliosi refuted his story and provided detailed reasons why the entire conspiracy story was not even plausible, let alone believable. Therefore, we are forced to recognize a certain pattern here.

Howard Davis claimed he had contacted Mrs. Zelms and then immediately posted scraps of her statements on his website under the banner of a “WORLD EXCLUSIVE.” Later, Davis posted a message allegedly sent by Diane Zelms in which she states that everything she told Davis was true, but never expands on or explains just what she told him.

Mrs. Zelms reportedly stated that her husband had confessed that Fouke was the one who wanted to lie about the stop. Zelms also was so distraught by this failure to stop the Zodiac that he carried the composite sketch with him daily in search of the killer. Zelms reportedly told his wife that he and Fouke had spoken to the killer, “face to face,” and that the man was calm and answered questions. Fouke refuted her claims as politely as possible. “I don’t know when (Eric) talked to the Zodiac because he was in the car with me and we never stopped.” Fouke recalled that Zelms had not seen the man that night and that they did not discuss the sighting until later that evening. “Well, Zelms was riding along with me and didn’t say anything. It’s the only time that Eric Zelms and I worked together that I remember,” Fouke said. “In the station I think I asked Eric, ‘Did you see the guy? The white guy?’ and he said something to the order of, ‘No.’” Fouke was bothered by the failure to notice the suspect. “To me, he should have been seeing him. That’s one of the reasons why I wrote I don’t know if he saw him or not.”

The most curious aspect of this purported statement to Howard Davis is the claim that Mrs. Zelms was upset by the inaccuracies and “lies” in the books ZODIAC and ZODIAC UNMASKED. The only portion of the book ZODIAC regarding the actions of Eric Zelms and Don Fouke is the section in which Graysmith claims that the two officers stopped and spoke to the Zodiac, and states this as if it were a fact while, at the same time, never raising the possibility that the two men had not stopped the Zodiac or that there had even been any controversy or question regarding the stop. If Eric Zelms actually told his wife that he and Fouke had actually stopped the Zodiac, one wonders just what Mrs. Zelms considered to be a lie when she read ZODIAC.

ZODIAC UNMASKED further implicates Fouke and also states that two officers stopped the killer, however, this time, Graysmith does mention the controversy. Graysmith quotes SFPD Inspector David Toschi, who allegedly claimed that Fouke had tearfully confessed to stopping the killer. Decades later, Toschi purportedly told Graysmith, “We felt that Zelms and Fouke had stopped Zodiac, and did everything we could to keep it quiet so they wouldn’t be hurt by the police commission or embarrassed.” According to Graysmith’s account, Toschi talked to both Fouke and Zelms, and Fouke was the one who confessed and exhibited remorse while Toschi allegedly told Graysmith, “Apparently, Zelms didn’t think it was anything.” In this absurd scenario, the man who coerced his younger partner into covering up their mistake was the first one to burst into tears and confess while Zelms kept his cool and shared the truth only with his wife, carrying the secret with him until his untimely death.

TOSCHI: In conversations with the makers of a film about the case who had access to both Toschi and Armstrong prior to production, I asked them about this and they said that Toschi told them that Fouke had confessed to stopping the Zodiac. They went on and on about “Toschi said this” and “Toschi said that.” Forget that most of it was incoherent and many of the statements were in direct conflict with one another– these film makers weren’t concerned with the facts and weren’t big on common sense. So, after listening to them repeat Toschi’s alleged statements, I said, “I see. And what did Armstrong say about all this?” Suddenly, the flow of information dried up faster than a keg at a frat party, and suddenly they invoked “confidentiality,” claiming they couldn’t tell me what Armstrong had said. So, I replied, {paraphrased}, “You know, the studious observer would be forced to conclude that Armstrong’s account did not support Toschi’s. Otherwise, you’d have quoted him ad nauseam as you did Toschi.” The reply? “I don’t want to discuss this anymore.” The only recorded statement from Armstrong regarding this issue can be found in the notes from his conversation with a TV producer in the late 1980s. Armstrong reportedly stated that no one knows if the officers “saw” the Zodiac.

PELISSETTI: Pelissetti’s first recorded claim that police had stopped the killer appeared in his interview for COLD CASE FILES, more than a year after the publication of ZODIAC UNMASKED, and more than 15 years after ZODIAC first identified Fouke as one of the officers who had stopped the Zodiac. Pelissetti did not claim that Fouke had confessed to him during any of these prior interviews, or during his conversation with theorist Mike Rodelli. Pelissetti first claimed that Fouke had confessed to him during an interview with me more than 3 years after the release of ZODIAC UNMASKED, which claimed that Fouke had confessed to Toschi that he had stopped the Zodiac. I asked Pelissetti if he had any knowledge of this stop from his memory of that night or from his reading of various police reports over the years, and Pelissetti said no. He also stated that he could not remember whether Fouke had said he stopped the killer or was only accused of doing so, and he deferred to Fouke’s memory. Pelissetti also made many statements indicating that he didn’t believe that Fouke had stopped the killer, and, when asked if he did believe Fouke had done so, he replied, “How in the hell would he have stopped Zodiac and not noticed all this blood? Even if he was looking for a black man – I don’t give a [expletive] how dark it was – he would have seen a reflection of blood. Come on, give me a break. Fouke was a good cop.” Pelissetti also had no answer when asked what Fouke told him after saying he stopped the killer; one would think that the two men would have discussed the situation further after one officer told the other that he stopped the most wanted serial killer in California but let the suspect leave the scene and feared reprimand or discipline for doing so, yet Pelissetti was unable to recall a single element of any further conversation or elaboration on the matter. When interviewed for CCF, Pelissetti said that the suspect was asked if he had seen anyone and the suspect replied, “Yes,” and then explained that he had seen a man run into the Presidio. In his interview with me, Pelissetti claimed that the suspect replied, “NO,” and, in his interview for the ZODIAC documentaries, Pelissetti also said that suspect replied, “NO.”

The notion that David Toschi would keep this secret in order to protect Don Fouke and Eric Zelms is patently absurd. Fouke and Zelms were reportedly told to look for a black man, and they failed to detain a white man. They had a built-in excuse. The idea that Toschi would protect two patrol officers and not utilize his best lead– two men who had seen the killer’s face– is also absurd; if Toschi believed Fouke had seen the killer’s face, and even heard his voice, then any competent and/or dedicated detective would come to Fouke first, even in private, with any new suspect and ask, “Is this him?” I would. Wouldn’t you? I’d be camped out in front of his door, hounding him constantly, surprising him in church with mug books and bewildered suspects, and making sure every one involved in the investigation knew that Fouke was the only living person who had seen and spoke to the Zodiac face to face. But, that’s just me.

Neither Fouke nor Zelms could face any legitimate or significant discipline or punishment for their actions on that night, whether or not they did stop the killer, or anyone else. The only person who would, in fact, under any police procedure and policy, face serious, perhaps career-ending consequences for concealing the fact that the police had actually stopped the killer while, at the same time, failing to utilize this information to its full potential, would be David Toschi, who allegedly admits that he helped conceal this from the world, if not his partner and superiors.

People often believe that others must have movie-motives for bending or breaking the truth when, in fact, human nature is far more complicated, or, rather, very simple. Some people want to brag and make themselves seem more important than they were or are, or, others are trying to exploit a situation or this case, for personal gain, such as attention, fame, money or more. Some people need to feel useful and want to help, sometimes helping too much when encouraged or coerced, or even when someone makes them feel that they possess important answers to important questions. And, sometimes people are just lonely and feel that offering information, sometimes any information, will maintain that flow of contact. And, some people are just full of it.

After years of following and studying this issue, and, after my own research, I have to comment on one point: This was never an issue until the book ZODIAC made it an issue; prior to that, this wasn’t even a blip on the radar of this case. Now, conspiracists will insist that this is proof that there is a conspiracy. And, they won’t be deterred by the statements from former SFPD investigators Vince Repetto and Tom Bruton, who both sincerely denied any knowledge of his stop and said there was nothing in the files and they had never encountered anyone who believed it happened. Some people need a conspiracy to help explain why police ignore their claims to have solved the case or their elaborate theories used to help peddle merchandise on websites or sell books which offer solutions to the mystery. And, some people simply have good reasons to make Don Fouke appear dishonest, incompetent and without credibility.

Don Fouke has emphatically stated that Arthur Leigh Allen was not the man he saw near the scene of the Stine murder. Robert Graysmith (and David Toschi) made second-and-third careers out of accusing Allen for more than two decades. Don Fouke would be the first person to tell you that the man he saw did not have long hair and a beard, as Howard Davis’ pet suspect had on the day after the Stine murder. Howard Davis is also claiming that there was a massive conspiracy to conceal the truth about the Zodiac/Manson connection. Is it any wonder that these individuals have worked to discredit Fouke and claim he is lying about his actions?

Both Diane Zelms and Pelissetti did not make these claims until years after Robert Graysmith’s book had told the world that Don Fouke stopped the Zodiac. Basically, if you believe what you read, Don Fouke stopped the Zodiac– that IS the truth, and, if you were to contradict this, you’d be contradicting the popular, public version that appeared in the best-selling book about the case, as well as the lead investigator for SFPD. If one wished to seem connected, involved, important, etc., and one was going to intentionally or unintentionally bend, break or invent the truth, one would most likely tell a story in keeping with the public, accepted “truth” on the matter, rather than tell a story which contradicts that “truth” and be dismissed.

“Apparently, Zelms didn’t think it was anything.” A bizarre statement for a man who was allegedly wrought with guilt over his failure to stop the most notorious serial killer in California. As Voltaire said, “Common sense is not so common,” and I believe that is why so many people are still perpetuating the Zodiac’s myth about police stopping him and then letting him escape justice. The killer most likely hoped that this story would help confuse and confound, and he was right. I’m sure he never guessed he’d have so much help from people who claimed to be concerned about the truth.

At a certain point, a man’s statements, his career, his character, should count for something, and I think Don Fouke is telling the truth– in fact, I think it’s blatantly obvious that he is. Sure, there are some conflicting aspects of his statements, but I don’t doubt that anyone would make such mistakes after so many years, especially when one considers that we all try to fill in the gaps of our memories by creating linear narratives, filled with details, from moment to moment, when, in fact, this is not how the human brain works, despite our wishes or needs. At best, we can look at Fouke’s over-all statements weighed against those who contradict him, and I think he remains totally unscathed and totally supported by the known facts, common sense and logic. I know others will disagree, no matter what happens. Conspiracy theories are always more entertaining than the cold hard reality that a man can enter an upscale residential neighborhood, murder a human being, be seen by several witnesses, including two police officers, brag about his crime and elude justice for the last four decades. There’s not much to talk about there, other than the nature of our society, and the human mind. Is it any wonder that people need or wish to invent and/or spread far more elaborate and entertaining scenarios in which they can justify virtually any bit of nonsense, no matter how extreme or absurd? This is how the so-called “researchers” of the “online community” proceed when it comes to victim Darlene Ferrin; in the fantasy universe, it’s more fun to believe that Darlene was this mysterious figure from the movies, or some kind of Black Dahlia who was linked to all the shadowy corners of the underworld, drugs, Satan-worship, and more. This allows people to invent and peddle all kinds of ridiculous scenarios when the facts are not as useful. It’s easier to invent an elaborate fantasy and paint Ferrin as the Laura Palmer of the Zodiac case than it is to accept the cold hard reality that she was just a normal, decent person who lived a normal life, had some problems like anyone else which have nothing to do with her death, made some mistakes, went to a park with a friend, and then was shot by a stranger who called police and wrote to the newspapers to brag about his crimes yet somehow still managed to avoid capture ever since. There’s not much to talk about there, other than the nature of fate, coincidence and tragedy.

I believe it is abundantly clear that, when it comes to the persistence of this perpetual nonsense, there’s really not much of real importance to talk about, other than the nature of popular mass delusions and the madness of crowds.

I’m not saying this avenue is not worth looking into or questioning, but it completely clashes with Fouke’s statement from 11/12/69. He writes that he did not know if Zelms saw Z or not. He would be running a huge risk writing that if the Inspectors talked to Zelms. If Fouke is lying, he was lying since this memo,and if he did really talk to Z,then his Partner, Zelms had to cover for him.

Zelms reportedly told his wife that he and Fouke had spoken to the killer, “face to face,” and that the man was calm and answered questions.
I, no doubt, believe Zelms wife over Fouke.
And I have always been pretty suspicious concerning the killing of officer Eric Zelms, only 2 1/2 months after the Paul Stine murder, January 1, 1970.
Was he killed in a setup to silence him?

I don’t think so TF. Just happenstance.

Here is a link to a thread by Seagull. It’s a really good article about what happened.

viewtopic.php?f=84&t=2413

We must remember too that Fouke & Zelms were (supposedly) only partners that one evening.

I just don’t buy Fouke. He describes in great detail what the man wore. Rust colored pleated trousers, a derby or 3 quarter waist length jacket with elastic at the waist and cuffs and flap down collar and engineering type boots. He could also recall that he had a widows peak. All of this at night driving by at 35 to 40 mph. Later he claims to have asked Zelms if he saw the white guy that night to which Eric replied "no". So even though the man was on Zelm’s side of the car he didn’t see him but Fouke got that great description. RIGHT! Also the fact of someone that close to a murder scene and you don’t stop him? I think it’s bs.

This is a bit off topic, but I didn’t see mention of it elsewhere on the site. Donald Fouke was nominated for policeman of the year in 1968. The recipient was chosen among the nation’s ~400,000 peace officers. While not the winner, Fouke was one of ten honorable mentions.

Donald Fouke’s scratch is dated one month after the murder, one has to question why.
Michael Butterfield states "It seems to be much easier to just believe in a completely implausible and virtually laughable scenario than it is to simply accept common sense, the facts and logic". That is who’s common sense, there is no ultimate claim on logic. The timeline of Fouke and Pelissetti simply do not match and Donald Fouke stated he headed up Arguello into West Pacific Avenue 18 years before the 2007 DVD. If we are talking about memory issues as Michael Butterfield quotes we have to accept Donald Fouke’s memory was likely more accurate in 1989 than 2007. Also if we are talking of logic then we have to provide an alternative to the above timeline to explain the meeting of Fouke and Pelissetti in Cherry or explain why Donald Fouke was heading away from the crime scene, not just bandy around the words conspiracy theorists, without explaining how the timeline works. Of course police never lie.
Michael says "I have no doubt that this post will not change the minds of those who wish to continue calling Fouke a liar, as they are apparently addicted to fantasy and want to keep unnecessary mystery alive". This is extremely dismissive and is basically saying ‘if you don’t agree with my post, you are a fantasist’. No I just want to know how two people can meet at a point in Cherry when we have a discrepancy in excess of 2 minutes. Is that an illogical question. And yes memories do fade, but the 1989 interview is earlier and the wild discrepancy needs to be questioned. This is not a question of memory fade, this is a question of adding facts, then we have the 3712 Jackson Street claim in the 2007 DVD, how many versions are we to accept and if anyone watches the 2007 documentary Fouke trips himself up and contradicts himself on numerous occasions.
Michael says "The Zodiac went out of his way to ridicule and embarrass police in his letter sent within two days after the Stine murder, and he even mocked police for failing to capture him. He also escalated the threats by suggesting that he was intended to attack a school bus filled with children. A killer who was so frightened by his brush with capture would not behave in this manner, most certainly after he had been stopped and briefly questioned by two police officers near the scene". Why wouldn’t a killer behave in this way, he certainly wasn’t frightened when he stuck around the crime scene carefully tearing a piece of shirt, he certainly had the compunction to kill somebody in a built up area, and wear a disguise at Berryessa and take time to write on the car door. No killer would act this way surely, but he did. Nobody has the right for exclusivity on how a killer thinks.
Michael says " The Zodiac waited almost a month before mentioning this claim about a police stop, and he buried it in the middle of the letter" Well Donald Fouke waited a month to write the scratch, before he came up with his version.
Michael says "Both Diane Zelms and Pelissetti did not make these claims until years after Robert Graysmith’s book had told the world that Don Fouke stopped the Zodiac". Donald Fouke made his claim about heading away from the crime scene in 1989, I emphasize again, why is he not heading toward the crime scene, he said it not me. It is police protocol to head to a crime scene when instructed, so what was he doing there.
Michael says " At a certain point, a man’s statements, his career, his character, should count for something, and I think Don Fouke is telling the truth– in fact, I think it’s blatantly obvious that he is. Sure, there are some conflicting aspects of his statements, but I don’t doubt that anyone would make such mistakes after so many years". No it’s not blatantly obvious, sure we can make mistakes after years, that’s why I am taking the 1989 version as more accurate than the 2007 one. Donald Fouke may have been a good officer, but many police lie, even today when they have cameras pinned to their body, but that doesn’t stop them bending reality.

"I believe it is abundantly clear that, when it comes to the persistence of this perpetual nonsense, there’s really not much of real importance to talk about, other than the nature of popular mass delusions and the madness of crowds".
How dismissive. Then clearly explain the timeline, the missing 2 minutes + and further explain what Fouke was doing in Arguello and West Pacific Avenue, as he clearly stated in the video, if he wasn’t directed there and furthermore why he wasn’t heading directly to Washington and Cherry as he should have been doing. If he had responded directly he would have arrived at the murder scene before Pelissetti had even left the corner.

The idea Zodiac was covered in blood is not fact. He shot Stine from behind and when he entered the front passenger door, he likely leaned over Stine and tore a piece of shirt from Stine’s rear and exited the taxicab. Any small amount of blood on his hands could easily have been wiped away with a handkerchief. The teenagers were viewing at night, at distance, saying it appeared that Zodiac had Paul Stine’s head in his lap. Zodiac was many things, but undoubtedly blood was pouring from Paul Stine’s head, so is it reasonable to assume he put his head in his lap and rolled around in the blood knowing he was about to walk up the road, not many killers deliberately immerse themselves in blood from the victim. Anyone who wants to escape avoids it, if at all possible and Zodiac could easily have torn the shirt without rolling all over Paul Stine. Donald Fouke never saw any blood on Zodiac because there was likely little to none. The idea he was covered in blood is simply unsubstantiated.

Paul you said "Then, years later being one of the few who talked to Z and heard his voice, never admit to it, even long after retiring from the police force. No way". If you tell a lie on numerous occasions and then change it all and admit the truth after 47 years or after you retire, I am sure this would be even more of a stain on a man’s character than if he had come clean relatively earlier on. People live lies for years, he wouldn’t be the first and he won’t be the last. This is not a character assassination of Donald Fouke, no doubt you have seen hundreds of Youtube videos where police officers are less than candid with the truth, this doesn’t make them inherently bad people, everyone of us has told a lie to cover ourselves. Donald Fouke is likely a really decent guy, who got caught up in a lie, agreed upon and perpetuated by SFPD to avoid embarrassment, only it has backfired. If you provide me with an alternative timeline, then I am prepared to change my position, but until somebody does I won’t.

The San Francisco Chronicle ran a piece called Zodiac’s new message on November 12th 1969 detailing the ‘2 cops pulled a goof’ message. They had the Bus Bomb Letter on November 10th. Fouke’s scratch nicely coincided on the 12th November describing him seeing a white male on Jackson Street, yet if I am correct this sighting was never mentioned in any San Francisco articles prior to this point. Extremely convenient to have the scratch detailed at the same time as the Chronicle releases Zodiac’s message, otherwise would this memo ever have been released or had the encounter referenced at all.

Sorry one more thing "in fact, I think it’s blatantly obvious that he is". To precursor the words ‘blatantly obvious’ with ‘I think’, means it’s not blatantly obvious. All I would like is someone to explain how the two officers can meet somewhere in Cherry when we have 2 minutes and ‘4 minutes minimum’ to make this a reality.

The San Francisco Chronicle ran a piece called Zodiac’s new message on November 12th 1969 detailing the ‘2 cops pulled a goof’ message. They had the Bus Bomb Letter on November 10th. Fouke’s scratch nicely coincided on the 12th November describing him seeing a white male on Jackson Street, yet if I am correct this sighting was never mentioned in any San Francisco articles prior to this point. Extremely convenient to have the scratch detailed at the same time as the Chronicle releases Zodiac’s message, otherwise would this memo ever have been released or had the encounter referenced at all.

I have questioned that before. Why reference it at all?

It comes across as this being the first time the incident was even brought up by Fouke. Surely Zelms was then questioned. Too bad we don’t have a memo from him. There must be a statement from him somewhere.

This is what we have to consider: We are not privy to all of it. While we scratch our heads, the scenario might have been more clear to detectives at the time. Although one thing is clear; by Foukes statement alone when referencing the investigators: "Let them figure it out".

I would think,or at least hope, when this memo was passed along to Homicide, that Homicide would have brought in both Fouke & Zelms to get full details and a report from both of them.

Fouke, like others in this case, have changed their stories over the years for one reason or another,maybe for attention, loss of memory,who knows, but whatever Fouke first detailed, I would put more stock in. I am not familiar enough with police matters,policy,or rules to know this,but does anybody know what trouble he would have faced for filing a false report?

Then clearly explain the timeline, the missing 2 minutes + and further explain what Fouke was doing in Arguello and West Pacific Avenue, as he clearly stated in the video, if he wasn’t directed there and furthermore why he wasn’t heading directly to Washington and Cherry as he should have been doing.

Well, there is no official timeline here. You may be right that two minutes are missing – but it remains a matter of speculation all things said and done.

However, it’s a fact – and a pretty curious one – that Fouke claims (in the late 80s interview) that he a) drove past Z and then b) proceeded (directly) to Arguello. How can this be? Well, the only explanation I can think of is that Fouke picked up Pelissetti’s amended description (of the suspect) over the radio:

He rolls past Z and then, very shortly after, he picks up the amended description (either directly or via the dispatcher – this depends on what sort of radio communication the SFPD had at the time, an interesting topic in itself). He realizes a) that another patrol is already at the scene (so there’s no point in him going there) and b) that the guy he just passed is the perpetrator.

That makes sense, I think. The problem, of course, is the other version – where he meets AP on Cherry and receives the updated description straight from him. That version has to be discarded as the result of a faulty memory. Which is problematic. But then again every man who had anything to do with the events that night seems to contradict himself at least once – it’s seemingly how it’s done.

As for the scratch, I don’t see anything very mysterious there. Z had his letter published, the department made sure Fouke went on the record saying he didn’t talk to anyone. Hardly suspicious in itself.

And, as Butterfield quite rightly points out, if Toschi’s tale is true – well, there are no words, really. He knew perfectly well that Fouke spent time chatting face to face with Z, but he wasn’t too interested in it – and thought it prudent to cover the fact up because he felt sorry for poor Don. It’s impossible to believe, regardless of what one thinks about…anyone or anything.

I would think,or at least hope, when this memo was passed along to Homicide, that Homicide would have brought in both Fouke & Zelms to get full details and a report from both of them.

Fouke, like others in this case, have changed their stories over the years for one reason or another,maybe for attention, loss of memory,who knows, but whatever Fouke first detailed, I would put more stock in. I am not familiar enough with police matters,policy,or rules to know this,but does anybody know what trouble he would have faced for filing a false report?

Well the scratch from his point of view is correct, he did see a white male as he was approaching the junction of Maple/Jackson, but if you read the entirety of the scratch it says "When the right description was broadcast reporting officer informed communications that a possible suspect had been going north on Maple into the Presidio."

This scratch typed only a month after the shooting totally negates his 2007 claim of being informed of the new description by Armond Pelissetti and reinforces his 1989 claim that he received the new description via the broadcast. But what it also does is totally rubbish his claim that his last sighting was of a man walking up the stairs of 3712 Jackson Street, otherwise in the scratch it would have said " reporting officer informed communications that a possible suspect had been going into 3712 Jackson Street." I am trying to not to make this a Donald Fouke issue, as he has likely done much good in his career, but you have to admit that what it says is that the 2007 documentary is more fantasy than fact. He obviously therefore never turned directly into Cherry, did turn up Arguello, but if he had received the revised description here, what was he doing there.
My reading to make this story fit, is he saw Zodiac by the intersection of Maple and Jackson, Zodiac then turned north towards the Presidio, a little bit further along Jackson (before Cherry), he got the revised description. Suspecting the man he just saw may be Zodiac he continued past the Jackson/Cherry intersection, at this point while approaching Arguello is where Donald Fouke "informed communications that a possible suspect had been going north on Maple into the Presidio", NOT as he claimed in the 1989 documentary where he received the new description. This would be an understandable mistake. In other words he didn’t receive the new revised broadcast approaching Arguello, he had received it slightly earlier, but it WAS where he "informed communications that a possible suspect had been going north on Maple into the Presidio". Then he traveled on to West Pacific Avenue.
But we know Donald Fouke’s journey to Jackson/Cherry is approximately 2 minutes, by the time he reaches Arguello he "informs communications that a possible suspect had been going north on Maple into the Presidio." Armond Pelissetti then sets off and may explain why he turns east on Jackson up to the Jackson/Maple intersection, he is responding to Fouke’s communication that a possible suspect had been going north on Maple into the Presidio and not as he claimed it was just a calculated guess in the 2007 documentary. He meets the man walking the dog and then backtracks to Cherry. Meanwhile Donald Fouke is returning from his search in West Pacific Avenue and the two meet somewhere at the top of Cherry. This way nobody is lying, they have just got the order of events mixed up.

I think what Fouke claims – and what he has always, effectively, claimed – is that he never actually thought the guy was headed into 3712. As soon as he realized that the guy was the killer (i.e. as soon as he received the updated description) he reasoned (as he says) that the guy had pretended to enter that property, but what he did in reality was to head for the park via the Maple entrance (the low wall).

One may ask why he didn’t include the "pretended to enter 3712" detail in the scratch, but I don’t see this as truly significant. He includes the basics, if you will, which is that the guy made for the park as soon as the cops were out of sight. The main point of the scratch is to get it on record that F/Z did not stop and talk to the killer.