I disagree vehemently. Could have been another guy walking by with similar clothes on. Unlikely, but it’s possible. The only way you would know with "absolute certainty" is if you ARE the Z.
Has it been verified that Eric Zelms’ widow stated that her husband told her they did stop and speak to Z ?
If so that seals the deal for me,Fouke & zelms spoke to Zodiac.
End of the World…..
All’s we know End is what we’ve been told and shown what is evidence in the case. that’s all we have. If we each wish to make up totally unsubstantiated what if’s, I guess we can. What if there was never any encounter? what if Z really never stepped foot on Jackson? Maybe what Z wrote a month later was total BS, none of that happened, and Fouke took most of Z’s story since he hadn’t written anything on his own, but none of it happened. See my what if’s are just as good, or bad, as yours.
Monarch,
I’ve never contacted Mrs. Zelms myself. But I’ve heard it so many times on the Z sites I believe she has stated that. I’m not even sure at this point if there wasn’t a documented record of Mrs. Zelms stating that Eric had told her they spoke to Z. And the only way I could see that impacting the case is from voice recognition by Foukes. So if Fouke had lied about speaking to Z, the amount of time wouldn’t be an issue, the only evidence that Fouke would never be able to come forward with would be verifying Z’s voice if that opportunity ever arose. I can see why Z would lie about that point, to him, and the general population,it would make SFPD look even worse, and it did.
How do we know the Z didn’t just quickly duck into one of those houses? Or even hid behind a bush? I doubt the SFPD thoroughly checked out all the houses in the area. Then, perhaps he was looking out the window (or through the bush) and watching the interplay between Fouke/Zelms and the other dude who was just innocently walking down the street. The thing is LE didn’t know immediately it was the Z—it looked like just another murder/robbery in the asphalt jungle.
As far as I can see, the timeline is not that exact. He might have even jumped in his car, or bicycle, around the corner and sped off.
Just saying it’s POSSIBLE. We don’t have the whole thing on video tape.
I would estimate there’s approximately a 98.7% chance it was the Z, however.
End of the world…
Whatever % you feel comfortable with…..
I would estimate there’s approximately a 98.7% chance it was the Z, however.
Heh, yes. Something like that. That does amount to a pretty much negligible chance that it was NOT him, though.
A key argument against it being a random guy has been brought up many times, but it bears repeating: Who was the guy? We have never heard a whisper about any innocent passer-by having been checked out of the case. And this innocent passer-by, if he exists, is more than a passer-by: He’s a potential witness of great interest. Yet we know nothing of him – which means, at least at face value, that he was never contacted, or that he never made contact with the cops himself (after the whole Z story became national news). Not likely, in my opinion.
It’s similar to the first car at BRS: It could have been a random driver, not related in any way to the case, but if so – who? And why hasn’t he or she entered the case as a witness/person of interest?
ETA And another key argument which may be repeated: If it was a random guy, we have to – pretty much – conclude that the SFPD was unaware of his existence: If they knew that whoever Fouke rolled past was unrelated, they could have – and would have, that’s common sense – dismissed Z’s claim easily: No, we didn’t encounter the killer on the night – he’s lying: We only encountered one person, and he has been checked out of the case. End of story – no scandal, no embarrassment.
So, in order for the random guy theory to float, we have to assume that the idea of a random guy simply never occurred to the SFPD. Or, more precisely: a) it never occurred to them, but b) it was nevertheless precisely what happened: Z escaping the scene and finding himself along the very route used by a random guy who roughly matched his own description – but who was apparently never identified and/or interviewed in connection with the case. Too far fetched for me, simply put.
I would estimate there’s approximately a 98.7% chance it was the Z, however.
Heh, yes. Something like that. That does amount to a pretty much negligible chance that it was NOT him, though.
A key argument against it being a random guy has been brought up many times, but it bears repeating: Who was the guy? We have never heard a whisper about any innocent passer-by having been checked out of the case. And this innocent passer-by, if he exists, is more than a passer-by: He’s a potential witness of great interest. Yet we know nothing of him – which means, at least at face value, that he was never contacted, or that he never made contact with the cops himself (after the whole Z story became national news). Not likely, in my opinion.
It’s similar to the first car at BRS: It could have been a random driver, not related in any way to the case, but if so – who? And why hasn’t he or she entered the case as a witness/person of interest?
ETA And another key argument which may be repeated: If it was a random guy, we have to – pretty much – conclude that the SFPD was unaware of his existence: If they knew that whoever Fouke rolled past was unrelated, they could have – and would have, that’s common sense – dismissed Z’s claim easily: No, we didn’t encounter the killer on the night – he’s lying: We only encountered one person, and he has been checked out of the case. End of story – no scandal, no embarrassment.
So, in order for the random guy theory to float, we have to assume that the idea of a random guy simply never occurred to the SFPD. Or, more precisely: a) it never occurred to them, but b) it was nevertheless precisely what happened: Z escaping the scene and finding himself along the very route used by a random guy who roughly matched his own description – but who was apparently never identified and/or interviewed in connection with the case. Too far fetched for me, simply put.
How would he be identified if he just disappeared and never came forward later? There are many possible reasons for him not to come forward: (1) Maybe he had nothing to contribute to the case. (2) Maybe he was wanted by the law. (3) Maybe he was "where he wasn’t supposed to be"—ie maybe he had called in sick to his job, maybe he was out cheating on his wife, etc.
I don’t know if the SFPD ever checked out all the houses and the residents in that area. Maybe he was meeting his girl friend that night. Maybe he lived around there. Who knows? The answer: nobody.
The man walking along Jackson was almost certainly the Zodiac Killer. If we talk about memory issues, then Donald Fouke’s statement in the 1989 Crimes of the Century documentary, was his first regarding his movements after his encounter with the ‘mystery man’. He clearly stated he was approaching Arguello St when he got the white male update.
The question that should be asked, is why he is traveling on Jackson towards Arguello Boulevard, away from the crime scene, when he should have been responding down Cherry to the crime scene. The answer is he was likely directed there by the ‘mystery man’, we now know as Zodiac. There is little reason for this diversion, other than he was sent there.
When Donald Fouke responded to the initial broadcast, he was responding to an assault on a taxicab driver, therefore his first priority is to take the shortest route to the crime scene, keeping an eye out for the suspect, while heading to the taxicab driver’s assistance. Yet he diverts away from this route and heads further away from the victim requiring help. There has to be a logical reason, and that reason is he was heading after a suspect. A suspect ‘waving a gun’ as suggested by Zodiac. This is logical because his priority now is to protect further members of the public from harm. If he claimed he never stopped Zodiac, then he has to explain his reason for being near Arguello Boulevard, which he never has. Fast forward nearly 20 years and in the 2007 Zodiac documentary, he claimed he went straight down Cherry and met Pelissetti, which is simply not possible in just over 1 minute, but he adds in his trip down West Pacific Avenue, after meeting Pelissetti, when receiving the update from him.
In the 1989 documentary he receives the update, not from Pelissetti directly, but via the radio approaching Arguello Boulevard, which is the only timeline that makes sense. He is directed that way by Zodiac. He receives the WMA update on his radio. Realizing he may have been duped and that the man who directed him to Arguello may be the suspect, he loops into West Pacific Avenue, the last place he saw the suspect heading via Maple. He spends 90 seconds to 2 minutes scouring the area of West Pacific Avenue and the region of Julius Khan playground, finds nothing, returns to Cherry and bumps into Pelissetti. 3+ minutes has now elapsed since the initial radio broadcast, the correct amount of time for Pelissetti to do all the things he claimed, before heading up Cherry to meet Fouke.
But the overarching question, is what other reason does Donald Fouke have for heading away from the crime scene, other than being pointed in that direction, rather than heading where he should have been going.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A3kD-j … u.be&t=57s
The man walking along Jackson was almost certainly the Zodiac Killer.
Yes, "almost certainly"—-but what if it wasn’t?
Then the man, who wasn’t the Zodiac Killer, wouldn’t have sent Donald Fouke away from the crime scene. Why did Fouke go away from the crime scene.
Then the man, who wasn’t the Zodiac Killer, wouldn’t have sent Donald Fouke away from the crime scene. Why did Fouke go away from the crime scene.
Looking around for a suspicious looking killer type dude, I guess. He says he thought it was a black guy. That’s possible.
Yes, by all means. Perhaps he was a high ranking foreign dignitary who was out on the razz, as they say, and didn’t fancy getting involved in a murder investigation. Or perhaps he was – say – Mickey Mouse (the Welsh version), or another famous cartoon character, whose career might’ve been compromised if the press had learned that he’d accidentally become a witness in the Zodiac case – of all things.
Or perhaps he was – say – Mickey Mouse (the Welsh version), or another famous cartoon character, whose career might’ve been compromised if the press had learned that he’d accidentally become a witness in the Zodiac case – of all things.
Thank you.
Soze
Yes, by all means. Perhaps he was a high ranking foreign dignitary who was out on the razz, as they say, and didn’t fancy getting involved in a murder investigation. Or perhaps he was – say – Mickey Mouse (the Welsh version), or another famous cartoon character, whose career might’ve been compromised if the press had learned that he’d accidentally become a witness in the Zodiac case – of all things.
Of course, cartoon figures don’t actually physically exist, and can’t walk down a city street.
All I’m saying is it’s not absolute fact that the guy Fouke and his partner saw was the Z. Fouke and/or his partner may or may not have talked to this guy. The man the kids saw in the taxi was the Z, however.
