Lots of conversations have taken place on this topic over the years….The 8 year old boy, well we just don’t know. Where was the boy, where did he see the man he knew? We know the 8 year old boy and the man he knew would have been spoken to in depth, and this man was not considered a suspect. I’d love to read the follow up on this report. What did SFPD and FBI do with it?

Well we can assume that the law spoke to whoever this child named. And yes, nothing seems to have come from it. But how do we know that the police didn’t eliminate him as a suspect because someone gave him a false alibi? Also, whoever the kid saw must have had a reason to suspect him and this can only really be down to one of two things.
1. The kid saw the man at or leaving the taxi or 2, he saw him on Jackson St, for example, and though he saw red stains on the front of his cloths. I mean otherwise you’d expect the kid to simply make a statement saying he witnessed ‘Mr Smith’ in the area walking at time of incident. That isn’t how it’s worded in the FBI Document. The FBI Doc. suggests that the Eight year old isn’t simply stating he saw someone in the area that night and is coming forward as a witness, he states quite clearly, judging from the FBI Doc. that the name he gave them was possibly responsible.

I also think Z probably knew P.H fairly well. Serial Killers tend to strike where the feel comfortable doing so and don’t tend to cross into area or districts where they do not know the lay of the land.

"So it’s sorta social. Demented and sad, but social, right?" Judd Nelson.

 

"We know F states he was on Presidio approaching Wash. when he received the call about a black guy who robbed a cabbie. At this point F is less than 1 minute from meeting up with P at Cherry and Jackson. That to me proves the call that P answered, and the call that F answered are 2 separate dispatches. There’s no way P could do all the things he did, with the kids, observing Stine, and supposedely calling in update from black guy to white guy, and from robber to killer, it P & F rec’d. the same dispatch. Just impossible I don’t believe P at all there. I don’t think he ever put in the 2nd call before heading N. on Cherry in search of killer. F would have been updated before seeing Z. F never gets another dispatch, he learns from P that there has been a murder, by a white guy. It’s F who calls in telling dispatch of his encounter, and that he saw suspect heading/turning N. onto Maple. F later states he never saw suspect at Maple, only assumed suspect was heading towards park.
In Z’s 1st letter I think it arrived on the 14th, he only reports the actions that took place in the park from someone who could hear what was going on. The cops lit that park up like a ballfield, Z never mentions that, he never mentions the dogs. for sure he would have mentioned the dogs if he were being hunted by them. He only mentions what he could hear. In another message I’ll share my experience in the park around July/Aug. 1970 with a Nam Canine Trainer and what he had to say about Z being in the park."

Well I’ve said in other posts that I just don’t see how Zodiac appears at J’son & M’ple intersection when Fouke approaches it because Pelissetti claims to have walked down Jackson as far as Maple (encounters a man walking dog) turn and walks back up Jackson and it’s as he turns left onto Cherry, Zodiac now seems to appear from nowhere for the Fouke encounter, and the ‘dog walker’ also seems to have vanished.

WC, do you know if there were any school bus routes down the streets you suggest as possible POI’s whereabouts/home?

the kid probably saw X, Gaik or somebody who lived nearby…me kinda thinks Z was long gone..I have about zero faith in any witness at the stine scene..the 8 year old kid does intrigue me..wonder whose name he gave that was redacted,,black ink likes kinda short so that puts me right back at X or Gaik or some body else who resided in the neighborhood…

WC, do you know if there were any school bus routes down the streets you suggest as possible POI’s whereabouts/home?

I don’t know but my own theory on Z’s threat to wipe out a school bus is that his threat is not literal but symbolic, so to speak. Zodiac himself stated shortly after making the threat that:

"If you cops think I’m going to take on a bus the way I stated I was, you deserve to have holes in your heads."

To me Zodiac is all but telling us here that the ‘school bus’ and ‘Kiddies’ were never in danger and the threat was symbolic being school bus = a person of school age and the kiddies was actually one specific Kid, that eight year old. His wording is quite telling in that he says "If you cops think I’m going to take on a bus the way I stated I was…" He is telling you the way he said it was not Important or relevant, the child of school age was. He ends the sentence by seeming to suggest that if they take everything he says as literal and can’t see the hidden message or meaning then that isn’t his fault and if they were stupid enough to read his threat literally and not see what or who it was specifically directed at then they "deserve to have holes in your heads."

And I honestly now believe that the answer to the questions that appears in this threads title, that being ‘Zodiac ignores Cherry st Presidio escape, is this why?’ consists of a two word answer: First word: KJELL. Second: QVALE.

WC, do you know if there were any school bus routes down the streets you suggest as possible POI’s whereabouts/home?

I don’t know but my own theory on Z’s threat to wipe out a school bus is that his threat is not literal but symbolic, so to speak. Zodiac himself stated shortly after making the threat that:

"If you cops think I’m going to take on a bus the way I stated I was, you deserve to have holes in your heads."

To me Zodiac is all but telling us here that the ‘school bus’ and ‘Kiddies’ were never in danger and the threat was symbolic being school bus = a person of school age and the kiddies was actually one specific Kid, that eight year old. His wording is quite telling in that he says "If you cops think I’m going to take on a bus the way I stated I was…" He is telling you the way he said it was not Important or relevant, the child of school age was. He ends the sentence by seeming to suggest that if they take everything he says as literal and can’t see the hidden message or meaning then that isn’t his fault and if they were stupid enough to read his threat literally and not see what or who it was specifically directed at then they "deserve to have holes in your heads."

And I honestly now believe that the answer to the questions that appears in this threads title, that being ‘Zodiac ignores Cherry st Presidio escape, is this why?’ consists of a two word answer: First word: KJELL. Second: QVALE.

I just found these posts regarding the 8 year old kid. I had asked the question in one of my posts a couple of days ago about this kid. Who did he recognize that night? This is the strongest lead so far in my opinion. I have been following this case for years. Somebody has to know the witnesses name. Perhaps the parents of the kid got very scared when it was reveled that the killer their son might possibly have seen, was the Zodiac killer. Something is not right about this situation. This is what I think should be a good path to follow, on the trail of our advisary.

I just found these posts regarding the 8 year old kid. I had asked the question in one of my posts a couple of days ago about this kid. Who did he recognize that night? This is the strongest lead so far in my opinion. I have been following this case for years. Somebody has to know the witnesses name. Perhaps the parents of the kid got very scared when it was reveled that the killer their son might possibly have seen, was the Zodiac killer. Something is not right about this situation. This is what I think should be a good path to follow, on the trail of our advisary.

It’s a very interesting part of the case – intriguing to say the least.

I know that a FOIA request has been sent regarding this (by WC, the guy who started this thread), but to my knowledge he has not received an answer yet.

See this also:

viewtopic.php?f=98&t=2241&p=29566#p29566

This occurred to me after re-reading JDean’s comments in an old thread (thanks to Seagull for the reminder!)

Why did Pelissetti turn east on Jackson rather than going straight north, following what he by all accounts assumed was the killer’s route?

Now, here’s roughly what happens: The teens call the police, shortly after Pelissetti and Peda arrive at the scene. They talk to the teens. The oldest of them has actually seen Z walk north on Cherry towards the park (this the teen assumes – and this he relates to Pelissetti). Pelissetti now starts after the suspect, going north on Cherry. Based on what the witness has just told him – and based on common sense, for that matter – there is no reason whatsoever why he should turn east on Jackson rather than keep on going towards the gate at the end of the street (Cherry St, that is). But this – turning east – is nevertheless what he does. Why?

The accounts of what happened, and in what order, that night are extremely hard to follow – and partly positively contradictory.

Is it possible that what actually happened was this: As Pelissetti approaches the corner of Cherry/Jackson he encounters Fouke and Zelms. Pelissetti informs Fouke that the suspect is a WMA, Fouke says "oh ****, we just passed him" and what happens next is as follows: Fouke drives towards Arguello, intending to go around, thinking that the suspect has headed north on Maple towards the park. Pelissetti – who otherwise would have had no reason to do so – heads east on Jackson, because there is no sense in him following Fouke, as it were: It’s far more logical to head to opposite way, on the off chance that the suspect is still on Jackson St (and also as a means to catch him on his way back, should Fouke’s approach scare him/stop him in his tracks and force him back through/over the Maple St gate).

The above does not jibe perfectly with everything Fouke and Pelissetti themselves have said over the years – but it makes sense, I think. And how could it jibe perfectly? Their accounts of what happened aren’t consistent to begin with.

Alright. Now, consider this (which has always bothered me): Pelissetti says as explicitly as one could wish for that he does not believe Fouke encountered Z that night. He obviously does not doubt that Fouke encountered someone, so the implication is clear: The man Fouke passed outside a property on Jackson St (who appeared to be entering said property) was not Z.

How can Pelissetti possibly know – or even suspect – this? Is it possible that Pelissetti, as he’s continuing his search/pursuit going east on Jackson, does in fact spot someone? The same guy, still lingering in the area where Fouke spotted him?

Some possibilities:

1. Pelissetti spots Fouke’s guy. He calls him over, asks him if he’s seen anything suspicious. No, he says – and he doesn’t appear suspicious at all, so Pelissetti lets him go. Pelissetti then proceeds further and encounters the infamous dog walker (Mr X).

2. Pelissetti heads east on Jackson and spots the infamous dog walker. He talks to him, decides he’s not suspicious, moves on. He encounters no second man (he never says anything about meeting TWO men either, just the one – the dog walker).

3. The man Fouke passes is the dog walker, shortly after encountered and accosted by Pelissetti.

4. The man Fouke passes is not the dog walker, nor is he ever seen/accosted by Pelissetti.

I’m just musing and rambling here, so don’t take this too seriously. But what we have is this:

* Pelissetti heading east on Jackson. A fact not easily explained unless he had some reason to think the suspect had, in fact, moved in that direction himself.

* Fouke driving past a WMA on Jackson.

* Pelissetti meeting a dog walker (a person he did not consider suspicious and/or relevant).

* Pelissetti being of the opinion that the man seen by Fouke was not the Zodiac killer (an opinion he must have based on something – but what?)

The important point for me is Fouke stated that he turned onto Cherry ( heading for the crime scene) and it was then that he encountered Pelissetti. Fouke had actually made the turn and Pelissetti had yet to. He must turn for a reason! I think it’s as you said ….sh** we just seen a white guy.
I’ve always thought Pelissetti assertion that Fouke had not encountered Zodiac was more to ease the pressure on him.

I’ve always thought Pelissetti assertion that Fouke had not encountered Zodiac was more to ease the pressure on him.

That’s certainly possible. Yet another (possible) example of how both Pelissetti’s and Fouke’s various versions of the events (and possible motivations for saying this and that) just add more confusion to the already confused mess which is the Stine case…

The thing is that Pelissetti – positively – adds an additional man to the mix by what he suggests. If Fouke did not encounter Z, we have to account for the appearance and disappearance of an unknown man who was not observed by either Pelissetti (as far as we know) or Mr X (who was out and about, walking his dog or not walking his dog, depending on which version of Pelissetti’s account one opts for) – nor seen again by Fouke. Within a limited time frame and a limited area we’re potentially dealing with:

Fouke/Zelms, Pelissetti, Mr X, Stine’s killer…and a random Welsh looking guy with glasses and a crew cut!

I just finished re watching the Z documentary in which both spoke and things in general, aren’t much clearer…certainly leaves more questions than answers.
Pelissetti though does appear to base his opinion ( that Fouke did not stop Zodiac) on the fact that no blood was visible and the area was very well lit. He continues…I feel sorry for him if he did think he stopped Z. Again I still think there’s a bit of…the horse has bolted, let’s not dwell on Fouke and whether he or didn’t .

Something does strike me as odd though that I hadn’t considered before…I can’t put my finger on it but I found the whole reference to the man with the dog suspicious.
I don’t know, something doesn’t feel right.

I would wonder also ( given Pelissetti’s comments about taking his time making his way up Cherry etc) why Fouke would not have heard about the correction over the radio rather than from Pelissetti directly.Maybe there was less time involved than we would have thought. I would have thought though that the message would have been relayed immediately.

Indeed – it’s puzzling: Pelissetti arrives at the crime scene, talks to the kids and realizes that the information in the original dispatch is wrong. He then gets on the radio to correct said information: It’s not a NMA but a WMA. He’s quite clear about this – both in the original report and in subsequent interviews; the way he words it varies a bit but the essence is the same: He gets on the radio (and it’s he who gets on the radio, not his partner), then goes off in pursuit of the suspect, then meets up with Fouke.

Fouke’s version of what happens, with regard to the NMA/WMA mix-up, varies: The standard version is that he learns about the mix-up directly from Pelissetti, as they meet on Cherry, close to Jackson. If this is indeed the case it means:

a) That the updated information has not yet been dispatched.

b) Or that Fouke for some reason has missed it.

But there is a different version, as related by Fouke (in an interview he did at some point prior to the Fincher movie), in which there is no mention of a meeting with Pelissetti whatsoever:

As we arrived in Arguello Street the description of the suspect was changed to a white male adult…

Here, seemingly, Fouke isn’t headed to the crime scene at all, but is going straight to Arguello (and ultimately the park area, one has to assume). *

Go figure, as they say.

* But why would he be going to Arguello (and the park) before he knew what Pelissetti had learned from the witnesses?

Yes, it’s all very peculiar…In the first segment of Pelissetti’s interview he speaks of walking Cherry. coming to the corner and having a choice to make on which direction to make…decides on east…he sees no one scaling the wall to the presidio, then he arrives at Jackson and Maple and says he had the same decision to make…which direction to make….not a mention of his encounter with Fouke and Zelms.

In the next segment he addresses this and even states that Fouke asked him if he seen anyone, while at the same time claiming that Fouke makes no mention at that point of seeing anyone…that didn’t come until subsequent discussions later apparently.

I just found these posts regarding the 8 year old kid. I had asked the question in one of my posts a couple of days ago about this kid. Who did he recognize that night? This is the strongest lead so far in my opinion. I have been following this case for years. Somebody has to know the witnesses name. Perhaps the parents of the kid got very scared when it was reveled that the killer their son might possibly have seen, was the Zodiac killer. Something is not right about this situation. This is what I think should be a good path to follow, on the trail of our advisary.

It’s a very interesting part of the case – intriguing to say the least.

I know that a FOIA request has been sent regarding this (by WC, the guy who started this thread), but to my knowledge he has not received an answer yet.

See this also:

http://www.zodiackillersite.com/viewtop … 566#p29566

You’re right about that. I hope that information is forthcoming. I was reading a 2003 thread from this old site. They referred
to this particular subject but only the two teenagers were identified. The eight year old was not, but as you advised us, this information is not yet in hand. The request to the FBI regarding somebody that was seen by an eight year old seems to be a necessary piece of the puzzle. Think about this. If the eight year old kid recognized somebody it would lead one to believe that the subject lived near the park. If the kids played at the park perhaps they rode their bike around the area. The kid recognized somebody in the neighborhood that he saw often, even so much that he knew the individuals name. To recognize the person at night also indicates he saw this individual up close. The reason I believe the park is where the kid saw the man is because the two teenagers, who got a very good look at the killer, did not recognize him. That pretty much rules out a neighbor who lived close by. Yeah, we need the subjects name without a doubt. If they ran his prints who knows what happened. All I know is he stopped being Zodiac after this killing. He might have kept killing, but not as the Zodiac. Why did he suddenly change and stop?

The thing with the 8 year old is that he named a person; a person LE certainly looked in to. I don’t know if us finding out who that was would have any bearing. It would be interesting, but I’d like to think LE already looked at the man.