He did actually think the guy headed into 3712 Jackson Street and you cannot actually reverse down the steps, walk along Jackson Street and turn north on Maple in 5-15 seconds tops as Fouke claimed in the 2007 documentary. It is impossible. Either Zodiac went into 3712 Jackson Street or he went north on Maple, you cannot have both.

I don’t buy that. You’re extrapolating some sort of timeline from Fouke’s statements (which are contradictory taken as a whole) which has no objective reality.

You think Fouke is lying – fine. What’s your take on all the counterpoints raised by Butterfield?

Also:

Either Zodiac went into 3712 Jackson Street or he went north on Maple, you cannot have both.

Yes you can. Depending on what is actually meant by the statements in questions. You drive past someone who appears to be entering a house. At that point you presume, if you presume anything at all, that his apparent action is the true action. Shortly after, however, you realize that the person in question is not an innocent pedestrian – but a killer on the run. You then conclude that he was not, in fact, entering said house – but only pretended to be. Once you were out of sight, he made for the park as fast as he could.

The above is essentially what Fouke “reasoned”. Is there anything glaringly wrong with it?

It’s impossible? In what way? What Z needs to do in order for Fouke’s reasoning to be more or less right is this: As soon as he feels it’s safe to proceed, he heads for the end of Maple. That is all. Whether Fouke is mistaken in what you present as his claim (i.e. that Z went back down the stairs, down Jackson, unto Maple in less than – what – 15 seconds) is beside the point unless I’m completely missing what your point actually is.

How can you say Fouke never mentioning 3712 Jackson St until 2007 is insignificant? Changing or adding to your recollection of events denotes a faulty memory or dishonesty. Concerning the current events Fouke’s scratch was very important. Years later adding a possible address Z went into? Did Toschi and Armstrong know of this? To say you know his feelings or intentions is a bit much. What we know is what he said. It’s his job to state the facts and he didn’t completely do that. Like Fouke said, it’s the investigators job to determine where Z went.

"The above is essentially what Fouke “reasoned”. Is there anything glaringly wrong with it?"

We will agree to disagree Norse, but what Fouke reasoned is not what I am saying. In the scratch it clearly states "a suspect fitting the description of the Zodiac Killer was observed by officer Fouke walking in an easterly direction on Jackson Street and then turn north on Maple Street" . In the 2007 documentary he says "he turned into an entrance way of a house, by entrance way I mean stairs that are concrete leading up to a path, that leads to a front door, never saw him get to the top of the stairs, you want the address of that residence, 3712 Jackson Street."
He never saw Zodiac reach the top of the stairs because he was driving past him and he went out of sight, but 3712 is before the intersection where he claims in the scratch he saw Zodiac last heading north into Maple and into the Presidio. His last sighting of Zodiac therefore puts him in two places.
Zodiac may have entered a stairwell of a house, then proceeded onward to the intersection of Maple and Jackson, but Fouke never saw him reach the top of the stairs, so how can he subsequently observe Zodiac entering Maple.
Michael Butterfield is an extremely intelligent researcher and find his work on the case well thought out, but on this occasion I disagree with him. I am not constructing a timeline on statements alone, the critical part is that both Pelissetti and Fouke received the dispatch at an identical point in time and unless Donald Fouke had stopped at a restaurant or driven at 10 mph there is 100% no way heading directly to Cherry he can meet Armond Pelissetti, if he is on his outward bound journey away from the crime scene.
Either Zodiac is last seen entering a stairwell or entering Maple, what Fouke may or may not reason is superfluous. All I want is the facts.

How can you say Fouke never mentioning 3712 Jackson St until 2007 is insignificant?

Did I say that? You have a habit of barging in and interpreting other people’s statements in a way which enables you to express your outrage. Perhaps you should spend some time reading what people actually say before you post.

"The above is essentially what Fouke “reasoned”. Is there anything glaringly wrong with it?"

We will agree to disagree Norse, but what Fouke reasoned is not what I am saying. In the scratch it clearly states "a suspect fitting the description of the Zodiac Killer was observed by officer Fouke walking in an easterly direction on Jackson Street and then turn north on Maple Street" . In the 2007 documentary he says "he turned into an entrance way of a house, by entrance way I mean stairs that are concrete leading up to a path, that leads to a front door, never saw him get to the top of the stairs, you want the address of that residence, 3712 Jackson Street."
He never saw Zodiac reach the top of the stairs because he was driving past him and he went out of sight, but 3712 is before the intersection where he claims in the scratch he saw Zodiac last heading north into Maple and into the Presidio. His last sighting of Zodiac therefore puts him in two places.
Zodiac may have entered a stairwell of a house, then proceeded onward to the intersection of Maple and Jackson, but Fouke never saw him reach the top of the stairs, so how can he subsequently observe Zodiac entering Maple.
Michael Butterfield is an extremely intelligent researcher and find his work on the case well thought out, but on this occasion I disagree with him. I am not constructing a timeline on statements alone, the critical part is that both Pelissetti and Fouke received the dispatch at an identical point in time and unless Donald Fouke had stopped at a restaurant or driven at 10 mph there is 100% no way heading directly to Cherry he can meet Armond Pelissetti, if he is on his outward bound journey away from the crime scene.
Either Zodiac is last seen entering a stairwell or entering Maple, what Fouke may or may not reason is superfluous. All I want is the facts.

Thank you for your intelligent response. I like debating back and forth with you, because you know how to debate.

I hear what you say. And I too find it impossible to make Fouke’s various statements tally – I even find it hard to make his particular, isolated statements (never mind the discrepancy between his multiple statements) make sense. They don’t. Nor do Pelissetti’s. Something’s missing from the whole picture.

But I think you’re reading too much into the discrepancies and inaccuracies. Butterfield is right on the money – for my money – as far as this is concerned. Look at Pelissetti’s statements. Look at what actually lies behind these statements. They don’t remember very well what happened on the night.

Fouke’s scratch? My guess: He was told to write that thing. Because of Z. He wrote down what he remembered. He didn’t specify that Z pretended to enter 3712 because it didn’t matter – to him, Fouke. What he – Z- really did was to wait until the coast was clear, and then make for the park. That’s what Fouke means by what he says – and he elaborates on this in later interviews. That’s my take on it.

Consider this:

Let’s suppose that Fouke was lying. He did stop Z that night – and talked to him. What are the implications of this?

Fouke is, or at least was, capable of providing the investigators with a significantly better description of Z than any other witness in the case. He observed him from a few yards away for a considerable (in this context) amount of time. Did he keep this to himself? If so, his negligence is not only criminal – but historically criminal, one could say. That doesn’t mean he didn’t lie – but it has to be mentioned, no – it has to be highlighted in this context. Fouke was by all accounts and all records a good cop.

Or did he tell someone (eventually)? Is the story first told by Graysmith (and subsequently perpetuated by numerous others) actually true? Toschi found out that Fouke had talked to Z? Fouke gave him a tearful confession? But Toschi, benignly, kept a lid on Fouke’s faux-pas? Think about that for a second. An officer actually stops and talks to the Zodiac killer – but fails to report this to his superiors. But the latter are kind enough to let him get away with it.

Finally, take this into consideration: Fouke didn’t tell anyone – and nobody found out. Zelms, meanwhile, went around with the composite in his pocket and told his wife he had talked to the Zodiac. Nobody important picked up on this, it would seem. He knew that Fouke was (that has to be the implication here) hiding the truth about the encounter…but he, Zelms, apparently was not hiding much…and nobody picked up on this.

Huge case. National news. SFPD mocked by Zodiac. But nobody picked up on this.

I like Butterfield’s part about Armstrong myself. That part – pardon if I sound…partial to logic – rings true to me. Unless Butterfield himself is shamelessly lying. Which I don’t think he is.

Now, I’ve ranted on enough. There is absolutely no doubt that if we look at what we know, based on what the principal players themselves have told us, about the events that night – we have to ask questions. Many questions. And I commend you for doing so. But I ask you to keep in mind that…thing…again, namely the factor that faulty memory, ego, the need for recognition…and so forth (what Butterfield sums up very well)…plays here.

Look at Fouke and compare him to some of the other players in this little play. Compare his statements to those of Pelissetti – and Toschi. Ask Rodelli, who interviewed both Pelissetti and Fouke, what impression he got from the pair of them.

I’m sorry if my initial response was a bit sour – I didn’t mean it that way. Again, I respect you very much as a Z researcher. In fact, these days your theories and proposals are just about the only ones I bother to actually debate – because they’re worth debating.

Cheers Norse for the compliment and yes there is the tendency to over read into many aspects of the case and without doubt Eric Zelms being the rookie officer that night appeared to have been kept out of the limelight and ‘protected’ by SFPD who likely encouraged a low profile, while they managed the situation. There is little doubt Fouke was prompted to issue an official stance on the sighting that night, although it may have been useful if the accounts that night had been expanded upon. The detailed reports of the three previous crimes dwarf the sparse offering in this case and like other people have said there is undoubtedly a lot of information that is not in the public domain. Keeping information back, known only to the killer and authorities is crucial in investigative terms, although after 46 years that argument starts to hold less water.
One thing mind based on what BigMajestic said and in view of the officers positions in the car that night was the line in the scratch stating "My partner that night was officer E. Zelms of Richmond Station. I do not know if he observed this subject or not." Bearing in mind the dispatcher has sent out a radio message within the last minute, to be on the lookout for a suspect and the passenger side of the vehicle is closest to the sidewalk, and bearing in mind Donald Fouke’s detailed description of the white male down to his boots and elasticated cuffs, in fact the only thing he didn’t describe was Zodiac’s underpants, it would be incomprehensible that Eric Zelms saw nothing, he would have had to be asleep and after Donald Fouke made such a detailed observation of the suspect, he wouldn’t have made any conversation with Zelms in any of the hours subsequently. Stating "My partner that night was officer E. Zelms of Richmond Station. I do not know if he observed this subject or not." is not cooperation at its finest.

"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. "
No need to get rude. And as I rarely post, I don’t think I have a habit of barging in on anyone. As this is a forum I can post my thoughts without your consent even if they disagree with yours. There is no outrage just disagreement. We can disagree without angst.

Having gotten into unpleasant, heated arguments about this subject on a previous message board (the most intense of which are no longer around — not even on the internet archive — probably for the better), I’d rather not debate the subject. But, FWIW, I’ll share my opinions.

I think the most probable scenario is that Eric Zelms talked to the Zodiac. As mentioned, Zelms was on the passenger side and the suspect was walking on the north side of Jackson. This seems logical and natural, to me. The chain of events were probably very similar to Fouke’s original description. This situation explains the very detailed description. It explains Eric’s wife’s comments. It explains Pelissetti’s original statement (that Fouke told him that they talked to the suspect).

Fouke was the more senior officer. I suspect once Fouke realized what happened, he may have asked Zelms not to mention it. Being a rookie, Zelms probably complied. Two and a half months later, Zelms was dead.

I sincerely doubt anybody asked Fouke to write the memo. SFPD was a big, bureaucratic organization; I don’t think it would have worked that efficiently. Personally, I think Fouke read the newspaper that morning, saw what the Zodiac had written, and decided he needed to write the memo.

As for the killer, I suspect he was expecting SFPD to come clean and admit that they talked to him. The fact that they didn’t contributed to the frustration that was clearly evident in the bus-bomb letter.

I understand other people have other opinions.

If Zodiac is the truth teller here, and the cops are not,it proves what a sad state of affairs this case is

If Zodiac is the truth teller here, and the cops are not,it proves what a sad state of affairs this case is

I’ve always thought of it as a bit of a garbled mess of both–either intentionally or unintentionally.

I’m not sure I understand this scenario.

Doesn’t this imply that Fouke realized immediately, or at least when he got the right description, that the guy he stopped was the suspect/Zodiac? In that case, I see no reason whatsoever for him to cover that up. If we believe the story about the incorrect description, that means everyone working there knew they had made a mistake. There would be no shame in Fouke then saying, a mere few minutes later, information that was still important while they were searching for the suspect.

It only makes sense for him to cover it up if he did not make the connection between the guy he stopped and the suspect until after the Zodiac sent his letter in, and it was too late to do anything about it, but spare the shame.

So if Fouke turned around to search for the fleeing suspect, why did he stop after a minute or so, and turn around again and drive back to meet AP? And then not say anything? Am I getting that right? That doesn’t make any logical sense to me.

I see no reason for Fouke to lie either. On the other hand, I can’t see why he would take so long to send that memo about what he witnessed. If Fouke is flat out making up the story about seeing Z at all,or what if any exchange there was, then he could have faced criminal charges, and loss of his job, which is what makes me think he saw Z

I see no reason for Fouke to lie either. On the other hand, I can’t see why he would take so long to send that memo about what he witnessed. If Fouke is flat out making up the story about seeing Z at all,or what if any exchange there was, then he could have faced criminal charges, and loss of his job, which is what makes me think he saw Z

Agree..no reason for Fouke to lie. However he might have feeled ashamed about the fact that he had let Z get away.

QT

No need to get rude. And as I rarely post, I don’t think I have a habit of barging in on anyone. As this is a forum I can post my thoughts without your consent even if they disagree with yours. There is no outrage just disagreement. We can disagree without angst.

Fair enough – you’re right about that. I went too far there, apologies.