Richard Grinell wrote:

"I will ask one question therefore- why did Donald Fouke after traveling along Jackson Street head away from the crime scene towards Arguello Boulevard, rather than traveling towards a crime scene he was supposedly responding to. Why did an officer of the law supposedly responding to a taxicab driver being robbed and assaulted vacate his duties and totally ignore the attack on Paul Stine."

I see this mentioned often and I just wonder if it’s possible he heard the new description and was advised by dispatch that Pelisetti was at the scene and the scene was secure or deduced that was the case some way and had heard suspect was last seen heading North on Cherry? I mean if dispatch announces that Pelisetti is at scene w/ witnesses and has amended description wouldn’t you be safe in assuming the crime scene was secure and you should use your skills to try and catch the fleeing suspect? Just a thought on that subject.

You would think they would have made a U-turn instead of going up Arguello and into the Presidio.

At high speed you’d assume it wouldn’t take more than a few seconds to return to Maple.

Richard Grinell wrote:

"I will ask one question therefore- why did Donald Fouke after traveling along Jackson Street head away from the crime scene towards Arguello Boulevard, rather than traveling towards a crime scene he was supposedly responding to. Why did an officer of the law supposedly responding to a taxicab driver being robbed and assaulted vacate his duties and totally ignore the attack on Paul Stine."

I see this mentioned often and I just wonder if it’s possible he heard the new description and was advised by dispatch that Pelisetti was at the scene and the scene was secure or deduced that was the case some way and had heard suspect was last scene heading North on Cherry? I mean if dispatch announces that Pelisetti is at scene w/ witnesses and has amended description wouldn’t you be safe in assuming the crime scene was secure and you should use your skills to try and catch the fleeing suspect? Just a thought on that subject.

The likely answer is that Zodiac sent Fouke & zelms towards Arguello Blvd. in search of the "Man running down the street waving
a gun".

It’s a whole mish-mash of a mess. Probably was then, too.

I doubt the WMA on Jackson actually told Fouke/Zelms that he saw "a man waving a gun" and they chose not to detain him, and later presumably failed to convince others of the WMA’s significance. I doubt that he spoke at all but if he did indicate that he saw someone and directed them down Arguello I can’t believe he gave them the dramatic line that Zodiac later claimed. I think it’s possible Fouke felt they had covered the presumed (but not confirmed by police eyewitness) ‘right on Jackson’ route because their response from that direction was so quick, and time being of the essence they pursued possibility two, that he turned left towards Arguello.

Fouke’s own comments (several of them) raise questions. He obviously didn’t go zipping by in a hurry to get to the crime scene with such details about a guys dressing habits.

Mistakes starting from dispatch, to patrol, etc., that evening. Zodiac knew it.

I think it is clear that Fouke came to believe he saw the Zodiac but it is hard to determine if he reached that conclusion before the November letter arrived.

The Zodiac never boasted about his canonical attacks, in the sense he never he gratuitously dwelled on the act of murder
itself. He either stated he was the murderer or gave details to prove he was the murderer. In the July 31st 1969 letters we cannot assert he told any lies about previous events. He may have erred in believing he shot Mageau in the knee, when it was the thigh, but his other claims were given as proof of the crime. In the Debut of Zodiac letter we cannot prove what he said was deliberately stated to mislead. There is nothing in the October 13th 1969 Stine letter that is factually incorrect about the crime he committed, and equally we cannot prove he didn’t hide in the park. In the Bus Bomb letter there is no way to prove that anything he stated about wearing a disguise, not leaving fingerprints, being stopped by 2 cops and hiding in the park are factually untrue. From the start of his killings to the last confirmed murder, nobody can show or prove Zodiac told a single lie about any of his murders or events surrounding the murders. We can point to claims he said he was going to do, but didn’t, but there is no proof whatsoever he told any lies about any of the five murders. Remember, it wasn’t Zodiac who lied about crossing paths with two cops on Jackson Street- in fact he brought this fact up before police. I’m sure everybody has watched the 2007 documentary, and the only lies I saw being told were not from a serial killer, but the very people charged with his capture that night. These may be unsavory comments, but these are the truth. Whether Zodiac was in fact lying we don’t know, but we have no evidence to prove that he was.

I feel confident that Fouke and Zelms got a good look at the Zodiac that night and the fact that Zodiac waited a month to mention it I believe supports that theory. Whether Zodiac embellished the dialogue or claim to direct them towards Arguello or not it is telling that he didn’t bring up the confrontation on Oct13 which would have allowed them to immediately follow up. Had he, the identification from Fouke and Zelms would have seemed concrete and may have been a lot more useful. Although I think it is important to consider that Zodiac did not fill his letters with lies it is also a fact that the Stine murder marked a deviation not only in his murder pattern but also his intentions in the correspondences that followed. After killing Stine the author’s campaign shifted towards farfetched threats that no police department could efficiently deal with. The weekend ‘kill rampage’ threat in the first letters foreshadowed Zodiac’s end game to put police in a position where they had to take him seriously no matter how deranged and unlikely his threats seemed to be. While it seems a near certainty that Zodiac was seen by the officers that night I don’t feel positive that he wasn’t screwing with authorities when he wrote that he actually spoke to Fouke and Zelms. Certainly this remains one of big mysteries of the case.

It always amazed me, that despite the fact Donald Fouke was driving and was supposedly focusing on the road, as well as sidewalks, disregarding the less than ideal light and parked vehicles, he was able to describe the grey hair at the back of Zodiac’s head, his elasticated cuffs and waistband, tan engineering boots, his eyes (although not the color), zipper type jacket and brown wool pants in a matter of seconds as he purportedly rolled on by, yet, he wasn’t sure if Eric Zelms saw anything, despite the rookie officer being closest to the sidewalk. Donald Fouke saw Zodiac heading up a stairwell and heading up Maple. Donald Fouke even saw Zodiac in the next block down in the documentary featuring Mike Rodelli’s suspect. Donald Fouke then headed to Arguello, that then changed to Cherry 18 years later. This has little to do with memory, because the details haven’t become sketchy, they have evolved into something completely different. If Donald Fouke didn’t stop the subject on Jackson Street as he attested, and his eyesight was as good as the description he gave belies, then why did he need 5, 10, 15 seconds to determine the guy was white. He said himself, "seeing it was a black man we continued". Surely Donald Fouke spotted the color of the man’s head before he got to the tan engineering boots and grey hair at the rear. Once you’ve decided it was a white man, and you were looking for a black man, why are you scanning this man with more detail than the terminator. But stopping this subject to inquire if he had seen a black man makes sense, since you would have regarded him a possible eyewitness in the general area. There is no shame in admitting you did your job, especially considering you have been given the NMA description.

It always amazed me, that despite the fact Donald Fouke was driving and was supposedly focusing on the road, as well as sidewalks, disregarding the less than ideal light and parked vehicles, he was able to describe the grey hair at the back of Zodiac’s head, his elasticated cuffs and waistband, tan engineering boots, his eyes (although not the color), zipper type jacket and brown wool pants in a matter of seconds as he purportedly rolled on by, yet, he wasn’t sure if Eric Zelms saw anything, despite the rookie officer being closest to the sidewalk. Donald Fouke saw Zodiac heading up a stairwell and heading up Maple. Donald Fouke even saw Zodiac in the next block down in the documentary featuring Mike Rodelli’s suspect. Donald Fouke then headed to Arguello, that then changed to Cherry 18 years later. This has little to do with memory, because the details haven’t become sketchy, they have evolved into something completely different. If Donald Fouke didn’t stop the subject on Jackson Street as he attested, and his eyesight was as good as the description he gave belies, then why did he need 5, 10, 15 seconds to determine the guy was white. He said himself, "seeing it was a black man we continued". Surely Donald Fouke spotted the color of the man’s head before he got to the tan engineering boots and grey hair at the rear. Once you’ve decided it was a white man, and you were looking for a black man, why are you scanning this man with more detail than the terminator. But stopping this subject to inquire if he had seen a black man makes sense, since you would have regarded him a possible eyewitness in the general area. There is no shame in admitting you did your job, especially considering you have been given the NMA description.

I agree that the extremely detailed description is a very compelling suggestion that they got more than just a quick look at the guy and that it seems like the kind of information that they obtained by actually stopping and speaking with him. Could it be though that Fouke to some extent adopted the description of the cloths from the Robbins? It seems possible that unprompted he did not remember such detail but when he (possibly as much as a month later) heard the other witness description it resonated with him and coloured his memory of what he actually witnessed. The only reason I can think of for Zelms (who I agree must have observed at least as much as Fouke that night) being cut out of the ordeal is that Fouke and Zelms did not themselves know how crucial their sighting was until the November letter and therefore hadn’t discussed what they saw. Because they didn’t regularly work together and weren’t personally investigating the crime they perhaps hadn’t spoken since that night.

Can someone tell me why it even matters what Fouke says, as it’s established that he doesn’t have a consistent, reliable account?

Or if it makes any difference at all whether he spoke to Z or not?

Can someone tell me why it even matters what Fouke says, as it’s established that he doesn’t have a consistent, reliable account?

Or if it makes any difference at all whether he spoke to Z or not?

No, I suppose it doesn’t matter if he spoke to Zodiac or not, or went into the park, or whether the 340 cipher has a garbled message, or why Zodiac wore a costume. Unfortunately RTF, if we didn’t discuss these subjects that essentially won’t solve the case and restricted ourselves to just topics that will solve the case, like fingerprints and DNA, then 99 % of all the stuff discussed on this forum and Zodiac websites would be rendered redundant and pointless. There is a lot of interest in discussing the mysteries within the greater mystery- which is ultimately unearthing who the Zodiac actually is. If everybody just restricted themselves to discussing DNA- the last great hope- then we may as well just have one topic on this forum.
I enjoy mysteries about how the Titanic sank, how the Hindenburg ignited, the mysteries of ancient Egypt and the origin of the universe. But does any of this matter. Is it going to change my life- no. But these interesting debates within a case, not only gives us a better understanding of it, but provides people with a passion for unearthing the truth or the mystery of unanswered questions, however inconsequential. It keeps the mind ticking over. Searching for the truth, even if it doesn’t solve the case, still provides a challenge.

I enjoy mysteries about how the Titanic sank

Some ice-cold Jewish guy, I think, names Goldberg or something like that.

Fouke’s own comments (several of them) raise questions. He obviously didn’t go zipping by in a hurry to get to the crime scene with such details about a guys dressing habits.

Mistakes starting from dispatch, to patrol, etc., that evening. Zodiac knew it.

Agreed. I gotta say. I’m not in LE and maybe I’m speaking about stuff I don’t know a damn thing about (not the first and probably not the last), but it sure seems like you could characterize the police work done that night and some afterwards as "mailing it in".