Gotta be skeptical here, so there was a ‘VERY TIGHT’ window here….right? Palisetti was pretty close behind Z. How did the dog walker(if he was Z),have time to get in his house, wash up,and change?? All in a minute or two, and even if he did that, why come back outside at all? I don’t buy it.

For each profile of Z being rich, wealthy,etc, I would bet there are 3 or 4 saying that Zwas a pee on, underachiver,at a dead end job,etc. Profiles are a useful tool, but just that a tool, and an opinion of somebody. We have seen profiles be wrong before.

Sure there are multiple profiles of Zodiac. But for those who are interested in seeing who Richard Walter is, please read The Murder Room, or at least read the comments on Amazon. Most people have glowing reviews of Mr. Walter’s profiling and of the pro bono work of the Vidocq Society. Walter literally consults with scores of police departments (who seek HIM out for assistance, not vice versa) during the course of a year, so he must be doing something right.

And another thing about Mr. Walter is that he HATES to be wrong.

Mike

I’ve been saying for a long time now that something is not right with this account, and here are just a couple of the many, many reason why what Armond Pelissetti (I will refer to as AP) & Don Fouke (DF) say, cannot be correct.

We have AP stating on record that he was the first unit on scene, and upon his arrival, he noticed some young children approaching the Cab and he made the assumption they were the ones who called 911 and he was correct. He quickly escorted them back to the alcove of their house as he was not aware of the suspects location and feared he may still be at the scene. At this point, AP states that he was informed by the teens that the suspect was a White Man, not Black as was initially broadcast to responding units. He stated that "I couldn’t get to the radio fast enough to let everyone else know." He then, after broadcasting the update to BOTL for a WMA, not BMA, walked down Cherry, tuned right on Jackson, walked down to the next intersection of Maple, looked left, saw nothing as it was very dark there, turned right and saw a man walking his dog. Ask the man had he seen anything, the man said no, he then turned and went back up Jackson, turning left onto Cherry. Now keep in mind, AP has just walked down, turned, and now back up Jackson St and seconds after he has left the intersection of Jackson & Maple and is probably now just turning back onto Cherry, DF approaches the same intersection seconds after AP has left, and as if by magic, a White man is now on the sidewalk just yards away from the intersection. Where was he when AP was there? How could AP not have seen him walking down the hill, as he went back up? Remember, both AP & DF agree that AP hadn’t got back to the cab when Fouke first pulled up and spoke to him, he was still on Cherry at that point so DF was seconds behind AP. Also, how can it be that DF does not know that the description of the suspect has been changed to that of a White Male Adult? AP broadcast it remember before he left to venture down to Maple Intersection and back which was a good 5 – 10 minutes before DF arrives at the intersection and spots the white male.

It’s interesting Mike that you claim AP now make reference to a man who did not have a dog, and was actually on a drive pathway because DF admitted a few years ago that the man he had seen didn’t turn North on Maple toward the Presidio as he had claimed all these years, he’d actually turned onto a set of steps and a pathway that led to a front door.

And it also struck me as odd, even dangerous, that upon being informed by the witnesses that the White Male suspect had just seconds ago walked down Cherry St, Armond takes off in pursuit…On foot! Now even his own words suggest this would be highly dangerous when you know the suspect has only seconds head start, is armed, and somewhere just down the street on which you now are about to walk down. He says himself "The kids told me that whoever had done this crime, left the cab and seemed to be ambling or walking away down Cherry st in a Northerly direction. I walked that way myself, I did not run because there are innumerable alcoves & parked cars so I went down using every technique I knew so I didn’t get my head blown off."

So why choose to pursue the armed and extremely dangerous suspect on foot who now could be anywhere on that street waiting to ambush you when you can go after the armed suspect in a vehicle? This makes sense for two reasons. 1. Far safer – much safer in a metal box that is moving at speed than standing in the open street under the street lights. And 2. The response and chase will cover far more ground far more quickly that if you were on foot.

I have suggested, which many dismissed as unlikely, that there never was an incorrect broadcast of the suspect description at all because if there were, Fouke was aware of the updated correction long before encountering the White Male. So that doesn’t wash because it wouldn’t make a difference. And as I said before, there was no mention at all anywhere about an incorrect description broadcast until Zodiac forced them into a corner they couldn’t back out of when he announced PS, Two cops pulled a goof…
Fouke, probably under orders by the Big Wigs at SFPD, hadn’t even mentioned seeing anyone at all let alone what colour he was until Zodiac makes his revelation and when he does, Fouke & SFPD are all to aware that what the writer is alleging did actually occur and that to deny the encounter and claim the writer is lying is not an option because it happened on a street full of houses and potential witnesses could read the claim made by Z in his published letter, followed by the SFPD denial of any such incident, and realise that they had seen what they thought at the time was perfectly innocent, a White male conversing with, or walking past, a police car as it went up Jackson St. So what can you do now that Zodiac has forced you into a corner? How can you excuse not apprehending the white man that was right there on the sidewalk? How can you explain it away to satisfy the public who emand an answer? Of Course! You say that you were given the description of the suspect as being a Black Male! That way, we can admit the White man encounter happened but simply say that we did not make attempts to stop and arrest or detain him because we were looking for a Black Man, and this one was White! Public outrage and accusations of incompetence avoided! Do we know the name of this mysterious bumbling 911 operator who mistakes ‘White’ for that other colour that sounds very very similar to White, you know, Black? Do we know the consequences, and what reprimand he/she faced? No Comment to either of the above by the SFPD.

What if the Officer Zodiac refers to that spoke to him was not Don Fouke, but Armond Pelissetti? Why? Well it makes no sense for AP to endanger himself by following the route taken by the armed and highly dangerous suspect while on foot when he has a vehicle on scene. Also, if he had followed on foot as he said, then he could not have failed to notice the white man coming down Jackson st that Fouke see’s just seconds after AP has walked down and then back up the very same street. So where was this man when AP was there seconds before? Where did he magically appear from to enable Don Fouke to encounter him? The inconsistency inn continuity in this cannot be overlooked, nor can the fact that if the description were really given incorrectly as a BMA, that makes no difference and is irrelevant anyway by the time Fouke encounters the WMA because Armond says he had broadcast the update at least 5 minutes prior to Don’s encounter where he corrected the error and informed all responding unit’s that it was actually a White Male. That’s why it makes obvious sense that the ‘Black male description error’ story was fabricated as a necessity in reaction to what Zodiac let slip in his letter and because it was something they simply concocted to explain not apprehending the White Male, not stopping to realise that in doing so, they may have solved one problem, but created several others as the account now has other inconsistencies. Fouke said in the Crimes of the Century documentary that he encountered a white male but ‘because we were looking for a negro male we proceeded on to Arguello. As we arrived at Arguello the description of the suspect was changed to a white male, and we proceeded to West Pacific and Julius Kahn area." What? Arguello? Thought you turned left onto Cherry st, Arguello is one block further. And now you claim that it was as you approached Arguello st that the description was changed? Over the radio you mean? I thought you found out he was a white guy while pulling up on Cherry st and having Armond P tell you he was white? CONFUSED! Also, Fouke came out and admitted one month after the incident that yes, we did see a white male. What difference would it make for him to say he asked the man had he seen anything suspicious also? Especially now he says that the suspect he was looking for was Black, what damage could it do to say you spoke to the white man as a potential witness.
Zodiac claimed that cops pulled up and one of them asked him had he seen anyone suspicious in the area in last 5 to 10 mins? AP says himself that he spoke with a white male at or near this exact same location and asked that white man had he seen anything suspicious in the area and the white guy said ‘No’.

Mr. X has always piqued my interest. Regardless if you believe Pelissetti and/or Fouke aren’t remembering things 100% correctly, there is 1 thing that bothers me about Mr. X. Why wouldn’t the dogs go straight to X’s house or where ever X was at the time the dogs were on the trail? I’m not completely ruling out the idea that Z lived in PH or that he stuck around somewhere in the area after the murder. However, i would think that the dogs would’ve lead LE straight to him.

ok, perhaps i’ve answered my own question – http://zodiackiller.fr.yuku.com/topic/5 … or1ssRwqDp. I’m sure i’ve read that post before but had forgotten. If trained dogs weren’t given a scent to follow (because most any dog taken into the park that night could’ve smelled, heard and saw a person hiding in the shadows) then things makes you wonder about the entire investigation!

Mike, Z was "a wealthy and powerful man" and "a guy who cared about appearance and who kept himself in good shape"?
Well, I don’t know. What was his show size?

Mike, Z was "a wealthy and powerful man" and "a guy who cared about appearance and who kept himself in good shape"?
Well, I don’t know. What was his show size?

Show Size Smithy? Lol. Assuming you intended to request Z’s shoe size, then that would be size 10 and a half if you believe the print at Berryessa came from his boot anyway.

Mr. X has always piqued my interest. Regardless if you believe Pelissetti and/or Fouke aren’t remembering things 100% correctly, there is 1 thing that bothers me about Mr. X. Why wouldn’t the dogs go straight to X’s house or where ever X was at the time the dogs were on the trail? I’m not completely ruling out the idea that Z lived in PH or that he stuck around somewhere in the area after the murder. However, i would think that the dogs would’ve lead LE straight to him.

Mr X doesn’t match the description of Z given by witnesses. Mr X is of slim, thin build. Not consistent with The Lake B ‘Big guy, Bulky Looking’ or Mageau’s: Big guy, round face’.

In all honesty I have never really given too much emphasis to the Pacific Heights Composite for this reason. Lake B, Cecelia (before she died) said her attacker was a big guy, bulky, overweight. Blue Rock survivor Mike Mageau said the thing that stood out the most as very distinctive about the man who shot him was his very large, round face. Then, assuming the guy Fouke saw was Zodiac, he’s described similarly as Medium to heavy build. Approx. 180 -210. Barrel Chested.
Now keeping all this above witness description info in mind, we then get offered a composite of this big, stocky even overweight man with a big, round chubby face, and here is….

Then again, Mr X does look more like this sketch if you stick a pair of horn rimmed specs on him I suppose.

Ummmm, No comment!

Then you have to consider that MM at BRS assumed that Z used a silencer when there is possible evidence that he didn’t. So is there a chance he was mistaken about the face shape as well? We do have witness statements that pull us towards the guy being on the heavy side. The face issue though does seem a little ambiguous. Big? could have been, something about the chin? perhaps but they don’t ever seem to indicate the face itself was ‘chubby’. Only natural to think that given the weight statements but not necessarily the case. Maybe MM’s description of ‘big’ is, after all, accurate?

Mobile/cell phone cameras. You came along too late.

Then you have to consider that MM at BRS assumed that Z used a silencer when there is possible evidence that he didn’t. So is there a chance he was mistaken about the face shape as well?

Except with a possible silencer, he was going by sound, not sight.

Mike this claim you make regarding what AP said "Must go no further" has been playing on my mind for most of the day lol. It makes sense really that there was no ‘One man and his dog’ where AP states. I have questioned Months and Months ago several times that Considering AP claims to see this man and his dog right at or near Jackson & Maple, and remembering that Don and Eric would arrive at this very same intersection only seconds after AP vacates it to walk back up the hill, where was he when Don and Eric arrive there? Why no mention by Don & Eric of seeing such a man? How could this dog walker not have seen the suspect Don & Eric saw because he was right there seconds ago? But no, instead what we are told is that when Pelissetti is there, One man and his dog are at the location. Then literally seconds later after Pelissetti is walking back up Jackson st, here comes Don and Eric arriving at the same place only for the man, along with the pooch, to have vanished into thin air and instead, there is now a lone white male on the North side of Jackson st coming down the hill on their right as they approach the intersection and who, it seems, was invisible to Pelissetti who has just walked up that very street. Even Penn & Teller would struggle to achieve this illusion!

But seriously, I’ve never openly stated this before, but I have for a long time now expected that one day, maybe when Don Fouke may know that he should measure the time he has left on this Earth in Months rather than years, that he will make a surprise admission. I’ve thought this for about Eighteen Months/Two years now. It’s just a feeling I have that I think stems from watching him speaking on Camera for the documentary ‘This is the Zodiac Speaking’ in 2007. He sighs several times, looks uncomfortable and generally like he just wishes he could say what really happened because even when he comes clean about the suspect turning onto the pathway of 3712 Jackson, I am sure this was a slip and an error he didn’t mean to make known because at the time he said he was under fire with accusations of he having stopped and spoke to the suspect and, as a way of proving he didn’t and couldn’t have anyway, he let this slip accidentally that the suspect had turned onto some steps and toward a house before we got near enough to stop & speak to him. But as soon as he says it you can see he realises this is something he hadn’t admitted before because he follows up with "I don’t think I’ve ever told anyone this, and I don’t think I put it in the report" The film maker asks "Why didn’t you put it in the report?" Don then seems to start fumbling over his words with "I didn’t think about it in the report…. because I assumed the suspect didn’t live in the neighbourhood…. A White Male, walking in an affluent area…. I don’t know if he did live there, or if didn’t live there….Let the Inspectors follow through" He’s then asked, this time with shock clearly audible in the Documentary Film makers voice "You didn’t think it was important to report seeing a possible suspect approach a house?" Again, Don fumbling for a quick explanation and to limit the damage states "I though that was what I wrote in the scratch all these years." Yet just two sentences previously, he clearly acknowledges he knew he hadn’t put this in the report.

He knows more than he’s either willing, or is being allowed to say, that much I am fairly sure of.

Hi-

In June 2005, I was speaking to Mike Butterfield, who was going original research on the case.

In June 2005, Butterfield called me one night and said that he had just gotten off the phone with Armond Pelissetti. He told me that Pelissetti had specifically asked that Butterfield not tell me what they had discussed. However, there was one detail Buttefield had to confirm and he knew that I was the one to confirm it. So he spilled the beans.

He told me that Pelissetti said that he had a "very tight time line" in going around the block and ran into the "dog walker" (whom he identified by name to Butterfield) "very quickly." He was standing still in a "driveway" by Washington and Maple. (There are no driveways on Maple between Jackson and Washington. Was he in a driveway on Washington? Was it towards or away from the crime scene?) He was not walking the dog but just standing there. AP asked him if he’d seen anyone and he said that he had not. End of story, right?

Wrong.

Pelissetti said that he "kept the man around" and would see other people on the street, speak to them and then go back to this "dog walker." Why did he have to keep going back to him? Pelissetti later said he "cleared" this man based on four factors: age (Fouke had not weighed in yet making the man older), the fact he lived in the neighborhood (we now know that Z was, like the dog walker, a wealthy and powerful man, as per Richard Walter’s profile), clothing (of course, he’d change!) and the fact he was not out of breath (out of breath in his front yard; also this man was a guy who cared about appearance and who kept himself in good shape). He considered him a "potential witness" at that point. However, why the unusual treatment as compared to the other witnesses, to whom he apparently just spoke for a few seconds before coming back to the "dog walker?" Why didn’t he have to take as much time to clear these other people on the streets? If this man was just a man out walking his dog who had not seen anything, why keep him around?

So where did Pelssetti first see this man? Was it as he turned the corner near Jackson near the base of Maple, was it in the man’s front yard, or was it in a driveway near Washington? Take your pick. LOL, would you like this man to be giving YOU an alibi? How would he do on the stand? And the man he was speaking to all all these locations supposedly wasn’t even in the country and that he only walked a dog twice in his life and never walked around his own neighborhood! What a mess!

Mike

Well if AP said he was standing on a drive at or near Jackson & Maple, then it surely has to be the same man Fouke sees going back onto the same drive? I mean what are the odds of two separate units, both being at the same place within seconds of each other, who both make reference to a White Male on a driveway, and it be two different men on two separate driveways? What if Pelissetti see’s him on the drive just standing there, and calls him over (just like zodiac said the cop did) and the guy comes down off the drive, and speaks with Pelissetti on the sidewalk and as you say, ‘kept him around’ there until he leaves to go back to the cab. We know Fouke is seconds behind him coming up Jackson st because both Fouke & Pelissetti agree that Fouke had caught up with Pelissetti before he even gets back to the cab and is halfway down Cherry St when he pulls up to speak to him. So, as Pelissetti lets the white guy go somewhere on Jackson st sidewalk and starts to head back uphill toward Cherry, this would be right about when Fouke is approaching the Maple & Jackson Intersection and spots his White Male on the sidewalk who turns back onto the same driveway he had been standing on before summoned to the street by Pelissetti. It was the same guy! That is why Don doesn’t report seeing any dog walker at Maple & Jackson, and likewise , Pelissetti doesn’t report seeing the white male on Jackson that Fouke see’s seconds after Pelissetti has just been there! It makes perfect sense now! There wasn’t a dog walker AND a lone white male, it was the same person! Again, that is why neither of the two report seeing the other one’s suspect/dog walker. But why would Armond make up the part about the guy having a dog? Did he see something, or have reason to believe that the guy he was speaking with had just shot the cab driver and so needed to invent a reason as to why he didn’t take further action? After all, he’s a prominent man!