Fouke said that Zodiac’s jaw was ‘full and rounded’.

In light of all the other witness descriptions, the kids probably got it wrong.

What route did Pelissetti take while responding and making his way to the cab? What if en route, Armond spots a white guy standing on a driveway and stops, calls him over and speaks to him, at which point becomes aware that the man lives there and is rather prominent in the community so drives on. Then, upon arrival 20 – 30 seconds or so later at the actual scene he, like he says in the Documentary, retook the suspects description from the youngsters, one of which happens to be an eight year old child! This is then the moment that this eight year old child referred to in the FBI document gives Armond the name of who just shot the cab driver. The name he gives Armond, is the name of the same man he’s just spoken with on a driveway! Armond then, like he says in the documentary "Couldn’t get to the radio fast enough" to tell the units responding that the possible suspect is currently on a driveway on Jackson St and that’s when Don and Eric sped there only to discover just who it was standing on that driveway, and let him walk away?

*Deleted Post*

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.

I don’t know if we can cross reference the two things T but that’s what I am throwing out there for consideration. Our heads are wonderful things with a brain and eyes and ears and … all interconnected.

Hi-

I think the point is that Pelissetti doesn’t have any credibility left with three (and POSSIBLY four, the last one not confirmed) different versions of his story, so why do we have to accept ANYTHING he says, especially about "tight timelines?" Once you start changing your story, credibility goes bye-bye. And it couldn’t happen to a nicer man, I might add.

He called me, "That clown from New Jersey." I find that highly offensive. I am originally from New York, dammit!

Mike

Hi-

I think the point is that Pelissetti doesn’t have any credibility left with three (and POSSIBLY four, the last one not confirmed) different versions of his story, so why do we have to accept ANYTHING he says, especially about "tight timelines?" Once you start changing your story, credibility goes bye-bye. And it couldn’t happen to a nicer man, I might add.

He called me, "That clown from New Jersey." I find that highly offensive. I am originally from New York, dammit!

Mike

Lol. I googled AP a few Months ago and came across an article in which a lady had made a complaint about, and seemed to seriously take issue with AP because she was claiming he did not believe her, dismissed her outright, and refused to talk her complaint etc. I tried searching for this yesterday but couldn’t find It.
But yeah I agree that once your caught telling one lie, everything else you say from that point should be treated with scepticism. That’s how Law Courts operate with witness testimony, lie to a Court once under Oath, and you credibility as a witness is gone no matter if every other word out of your mouth thereafter is the truth.

The thing is, I don’t think there’s need to even question whether AP & DF are being less than forthcoming with the truth, or at the very least withholding facts and details relevant to that nights events, but the question is; Why? Is it simply to cover their own incompetent mistakes that night? It doesn’t seem to be a ‘Conspiracy of silence’ between Don, Armond and Eric because had they concocted a story to cover for them all failing to apprehend Zodiac, then they’d surely not accuse each other of lying on camera like AP does by claiming DF told him soon after the fact that he did stop someone, a charge which Don continues to deny.

I can’t help but think that if they are all inventing cover stories, withholding crucial info or evidence, then it would have to be due to something even more sinister, that being, the suspect they saw was of such prominent status that it was nothing to do with incompetent policing or a bumbling radio despatcher’s description as to how and why he was allowed to simply walk away without so much as his details having been taken by any of them for, at the very least, purposes of him being a possible witness

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

Great appeal to authority. Everyone hates to be wrong. That doesn’t make Walter right. If I went through his history of profiles, I would bet he has been wrong at least as many times as he has been right. It is the nature of profiling. As for Qvale being Zodiac, putting him in his own neighborhood, on his own street, late in the evening when most people are home, does nothing to link him to a crime. For all I know, he heard sirens and walked out of his house to investigate, which is a reasonable response for a denizen of a quiet, wealthy neighborhood. Lindsey Robbins did you no favors. If he couldn’t unequivocally identify Qvale, all you have is a guy in his neighborhood at the time of the crime, which is largely nothing.

Pellisetti was likely trying to protect SFPD from a massive lawsuit by discouraging you from pursuing Qvale. Had both Lindsey and Rebecca had unequivocally IDed Qvale, then you might have something. While their 35-year-old IDs would certainly not be unassailable, I think two eyewitnesses who were adamant that Qvale was the guy they saw would have gotten an investigation off the ground. But you didn’t get that because you never interviewed Rebecca.

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.

Fog of war. The entire scene was chaotic at the time. I am more surprised that any of them can remember anything so clearly after 40 years. Trying to scrutinize their every word and detail events down to the minute is an exercise in futility. Also, their watches were all likely off by a few minutes, so the timeframes will never be exact.

Hi-

I think the point is that Pelissetti doesn’t have any credibility left with three (and POSSIBLY four, the last one not confirmed) different versions of his story, so why do we have to accept ANYTHING he says, especially about "tight timelines?" Once you start changing your story, credibility goes bye-bye. And it couldn’t happen to a nicer man, I might add.

He called me, "That clown from New Jersey." I find that highly offensive. I am originally from New York, dammit!

Mike

His story hasn’t changed that much. He saw a guy on Jackson. We can quibble about whether he had a dog or not or whether he was closer to Maple or out in front of his house. But, he has consistently maintained that he saw Kjell Qvale on Jackson Street shortly after the murder. You have never touched on the things that matter… was he frazzled or nervous? Did he look out of breath, as if he just ran to his house? Was he disheveled (did it appear he had just quickly changed clothes)? If Pellisetti thinks that Qvale could not have had enough time to get from Washington & Cherry to his home, change, and get back out on Jackson in time, you are really not in a position to challenge that opinion without more facts. You have stated that Qvale was a track champion in his late teens or 20s… that was MANY years ago! What about Fouke referencing the "shuffling lope" or limp of the Zodiac? Did Qvale walk with a limp? You have more work to do.