He didn’t take credit for LHR or BRS in writing until July 31st, nor did he use the symbol. He didn’t use the name "Zodiac" until August. Nobody knows when it even dawned on him to do these things. And writing on the cab would have defeated the entire purpose of staging a botched cab robbery and mailing in the piece of shirt to embarrass SFPD.

Personally I hold more weight to the LE’s description, but that just my opinion.

Based upon a couple second observation? That’s quite a lot of faith in Fouke’s observation skills…and his memory. Not mention, if Fouke really spoke to the Zodiac (and I think he did), he has the most motive to muddy the water by casting doubt on the Robbins’ description. He does not want to be the guy that had the Zodiac dead to rights and let him go.

So we are supposed to take three people who saw

No. Just take what Hartnell, Shepherd, Mageau and Robbins said. They are all pretty consistent.

Apologies my previous message did not post in its entirety.

“ So we are supposed to take three people who saw somebody who was very possibly not the Zodiac and three children’s description as gospel. LE are trained in this field, the only change to the sketch was to make Zodiac look older, let’s not forget that LE has the closest view also.”

Hartnell and Shepard’s was based on voice and actions not his facial features, Mm states he only had a profile view. Who was best qualified and saw Zodiac at the closest distance to give an accurate description? I am not being antagonistic, simply curious.

Apologies my previous message did not post in its entirety.

“ So we are supposed to take three people who saw somebody who was very possibly not the Zodiac and three children’s description as gospel. LE are trained in this field, the only change to the sketch was to make Zodiac look older, let’s not forget that LE has the closest view also.”

Hartnell and Shepard’s was based on voice and actions not his facial features, Mm states he only had a profile view. Who was best qualified and saw Zodiac at the closest distance to give an accurate description? I am not being antagonistic, simply curious.

I guess you have to weigh "close" against "time of observation." And how well did Fouke pay attention to specific features when he was looking for a black man? How good was the lighting on Jackson St. compared to the backlight offered by the cab’s dome light? It seems no one ever got a great view of Zodiac, except for maybe Kathleen Johns (if she is an actual Zodiac victim). I would go with the Robbins kids over Fouke because they had time to observe the suspect. Even with the hood, I would think that Zodiac’s close proximity to Bryan and Cecilia would give them some ability to gauge his age. Cecilia saw him without the hood, too.

Apologies my previous message did not post in its entirety.

“ So we are supposed to take three people who saw somebody who was very possibly not the Zodiac and three children’s description as gospel. LE are trained in this field, the only change to the sketch was to make Zodiac look older, let’s not forget that LE has the closest view also.”

Hartnell and Shepard’s was based on voice and actions not his facial features, Mm states he only had a profile view. Who was best qualified and saw Zodiac at the closest distance to give an accurate description? I am not being antagonistic, simply curious.

I guess you have to weigh "close" against "time of observation." And how well did Fouke pay attention to specific features when he was looking for a black man? How good was the lighting on Jackson St. compared to the backlight offered by the cab’s dome light? It seems no one ever got a great view of Zodiac, except for maybe Kathleen Johns (if she is an actual Zodiac victim). I would go with the Robbins kids over Fouke because they had time to observe the suspect. Even with the hood, I would think that Zodiac’s close proximity to Bryan and Cecilia would give them some ability to gauge his age. Cecilia saw him without the hood, too.

Completely fair points, but In regards to Cecelia we had a third hand description, and if memory serves me right (which I freely admit this not always the case) she had eyesight issues at distance. The Robbins saw Zodiac at an unnatural angle, and again are children a good judge of age

Personally though I still feel like LE had the “closest” view, unfortunately though we do not know the exact sequence of events. The timeline is ambiguous at best.

Apologies my previous message did not post in its entirety.

“ So we are supposed to take three people who saw somebody who was very possibly not the Zodiac and three children’s description as gospel. LE are trained in this field, the only change to the sketch was to make Zodiac look older, let’s not forget that LE has the closest view also.”

Hartnell and Shepard’s was based on voice and actions not his facial features, Mm states he only had a profile view. Who was best qualified and saw Zodiac at the closest distance to give an accurate description? I am not being antagonistic, simply curious.

I guess you have to weigh "close" against "time of observation." And how well did Fouke pay attention to specific features when he was looking for a black man? How good was the lighting on Jackson St. compared to the backlight offered by the cab’s dome light? It seems no one ever got a great view of Zodiac, except for maybe Kathleen Johns (if she is an actual Zodiac victim). I would go with the Robbins kids over Fouke because they had time to observe the suspect. Even with the hood, I would think that Zodiac’s close proximity to Bryan and Cecilia would give them some ability to gauge his age. Cecilia saw him without the hood, too.

Completely fair points, but In regards to Cecelia we had a third hand description, and if memory serves me right (which I freely admit this not always the case) she had eyesight issues at distance. The Robbins saw Zodiac at an unnatural angle, and again are children a good judge of age

I think you also have to ask what Fouke was basing his age estimate on. He stated that he observed what could be grey hair, but that could be lighting. So, did he get a good look at the guy’s facial features or did he just see grey hair and think 45ish?

Personally though I still feel like LE had the “closest” view, unfortunately though we do not know the exact sequence of events. The timeline is ambiguous at best.

I guess you have to weigh "close" against "time of observation." And how well did Fouke pay attention to specific features when he was looking for a black man?

Looking for a black man isn’t going to cloud his ability, as a trained police officer, to pay attention to a guy he and Zelms have stopped and are talking to. They realized rather quickly the significance of that guy, and it isn’t just Foulke who saw him, it was also Zelms. They pegged him at 35-45.

Bryan Hartnell was looking at a hood. His description of the voice behind the hood was 28 years.

I guess you have to weigh "close" against "time of observation." And how well did Fouke pay attention to specific features when he was looking for a black man?

Looking for a black man isn’t going to cloud his ability, as a trained police officer, to pay attention to a guy he and Zelms have stopped and are talking to. They realized rather quickly the significance of that guy, and it isn’t just Foulke who saw him, it was also Zelms. They pegged him at 35-45.

Bryan Hartnell was looking at a hood. His description of the voice behind the hood was 28 years.

A speaking voice wouldn’t usually alter hugely between the ages of 28 and 45, would it?

You’re the second person in this thread to suggest Foulke was sabotaging the investigation to catch the Zodiac. Letting Zodiac get away was not his fault.

Sabotaging the investigation is going way too far. I am merely pointing out that Fouke had motive for the guy he observed to not be the PH shooter. That motive could have colored his recollections.

You said:

Not mention, if Fouke really spoke to the Zodiac (and I think he did), he has the most motive to muddy the water by casting doubt on the Robbins’ description. He does not want to be the guy that had the Zodiac dead to rights and let him go.

What does "muddying the waters" mean, if not steering the investigation off course?

And wouldn’t catching Z be the best thing for Foulke, to make up for missing him the first time, and putting the whole thing to rest? Wouldn’t the clearest, most non-muddied description be the best approach to that end?

I guess you have to weigh "close" against "time of observation." And how well did Fouke pay attention to specific features when he was looking for a black man?

Looking for a black man isn’t going to cloud his ability, as a trained police officer, to pay attention to a guy he and Zelms have stopped and are talking to. They realized rather quickly the significance of that guy, and it isn’t just Foulke who saw him, it was also Zelms. They pegged him at 35-45.

Bryan Hartnell was looking at a hood. His description of the voice behind the hood was 28 years.

A speaking voice wouldn’t usually alter hugely between the ages of 28 and 45, would it?

Not if you’re Bugs Bunny.

Personally though I still feel like LE had the “closest” view, unfortunately though we do not know the exact sequence of events. The timeline is ambiguous at best.

Here’s an earlier post I shared which addresses these very points regarding descriptions.

Re: Episode 4 ‘Presidio Heights’
Post by mrsean » Wed Apr 28, 2021 11:23 am

I think we can all agree there is some ambiguity in the version(s) of events that night at Presidio Heights.

What I find interesting is the question posed to Fouke during his interview in the doco "This Is the Zodiac Speaking".

Q: "Can you guess how fast you were driving down the street when you saw [the white male]?"
A: “Well, until I saw him probably about thirty-five or forty miles per hour on a twenty-five mile per hour street, slowed down as [we] passed him, I don’t know, we were still rolling. Saw that it’s a white male, step on the gas. Five, ten, fifteen seconds tops from first spotting him ’till passing him.” (My italics)

Fouke describes the white male in the doco: "A white male adult, dressed in a derby or three quarter waist length jacket with elastic at the waist and on the cuffs and regular flap down collars. He had a crew cut, he was wearing rust color pleated trousers which were unusual for the time. He had on engineering type boots, low cut shoe, three quarters of the way in length, tan in color."

His intra-departmental memorandum states:

"The suspect that was observed by officer Fouke was a WMA 35-45 Yrs about five-foot, ten inches, 180-200 pounds. Medium heavy build- Barrel chested- Medium complexion- Light-colored hair possibly greying in rear (May have been lighting that caused this effect.) Crew cut- wearing glasses- Dressed in dark blue waist length zipper type jacket (Navy or royal blue) Elastic cuffs and waist band zipped part way up. Brown wool pants pleated type baggy in rear (Rust brown) May have been wearing low cut shoes. Subject at no time appeared to be in a hurry walking with a shuffling lope, Slightly bent forward. The subject’s general appearance- Welsh ancestry.”

This seems an extraordinarily detailed description under the circumstances, even for the most dedicated and well trained officer. "Elastic cuffs & waist band"? "Zipper part way up"? "Pants pleated"? "Hair possibly greying at the rear"?

As Fouke also stated: "Seeing as it was a white male in an affluent neighborhood walking along the street we didn’t think it was a suspect". This implies there was no motivation to necessarily focus on the white male’s description in any great detail.

And per Gian J Quasar.: "In fact, the view was so fleeting that Fouke admitted in his “scratch” that he didn’t even know if Zelms had seen the suspect. He concluded by giving Zelms’ name and badge number in order to facilitate a follow-up if his superiors desired."

One could argue there are two conclusions here: 1. Fouke does in fact interact with the Zodiac. 2. Fouke embellished his description because [insert your personal preference here].

Regardless, the incredibly detailed description seems at odds with Fouke’s own words which suggested a more perfunctory drive-by.

What does "muddying the waters" mean, if not steering the investigation off course?

And wouldn’t catching Z be the best thing for Foulke, to make up for missing him the first time, and putting the whole thing to rest? Wouldn’t the clearest, most non-muddied description be the best approach to that end?

You’re assuming that I said that Fouke consciously made a determination to lie about the description of the person that he saw. I didn’t say that. He could have remembered the guy as being older because doing so helped his narrative. There are a great deal of studies about memory that suggest it is affected subconsciously by numerous factors. Alternatively, I don’t know what Fouke based his age estimate upon. He could have saw what he thought was grey hair and made an assumption. He could have based his age estimate on the guy’s clothes. It does not seem likely that he got a good look at his face driving by at 25 or 35 mph at night.

Q: "Can you guess how fast you were driving down the street when you saw [the white male]?"
A: “Well, until I saw him probably about thirty-five or forty miles per hour on a twenty-five mile per hour street, slowed down as [we] passed him, I don’t know, we were still rolling. Saw that it’s a white male, step on the gas. Five, ten, fifteen seconds tops from first spotting him ’till passing him.” (My italics)

Fouke describes the white male in the doco: "A white male adult, dressed in a derby or three quarter waist length jacket with elastic at the waist and on the cuffs and regular flap down collars. He had a crew cut, he was wearing rust color pleated trousers which were unusual for the time. He had on engineering type boots, low cut shoe, three quarters of the way in length, tan in color."

His intra-departmental memorandum states:

"The suspect that was observed by officer Fouke was a WMA 35-45 Yrs about five-foot, ten inches, 180-200 pounds. Medium heavy build- Barrel chested- Medium complexion- Light-colored hair possibly greying in rear (May have been lighting that caused this effect.) Crew cut- wearing glasses- Dressed in dark blue waist length zipper type jacket (Navy or royal blue) Elastic cuffs and waist band zipped part way up. Brown wool pants pleated type baggy in rear (Rust brown) May have been wearing low cut shoes. Subject at no time appeared to be in a hurry walking with a shuffling lope, Slightly bent forward. The subject’s general appearance- Welsh ancestry.”

If you believe he got that detailed of a description by driving by a pedestrian at night at 35-45 mph, let’s do business. I have some real estate to sell you. So, he’s either making ish up or he spoke to the guy. I will note, no other witness described a medium complexion. I don’t know what he meant by that. Does that mean he had a darker complexion, like he had a tan? More the color of someone of Hispanic ancestry than someone who is pure Caucasian? Someone with a darker tan? I don’t know. This might not even have been the Zodiac.

What does "muddying the waters" mean, if not steering the investigation off course?

And wouldn’t catching Z be the best thing for Foulke, to make up for missing him the first time, and putting the whole thing to rest? Wouldn’t the clearest, most non-muddied description be the best approach to that end?

You’re assuming that I said that Fouke consciously made a determination to lie about the description of the person that he saw. I didn’t say that. He could have remembered the guy as being older because doing so helped his narrative. There are a great deal of studies about memory that suggest it is affected subconsciously by numerous factors. Alternatively, I don’t know what Fouke based his age estimate upon. He could have saw what he thought was grey hair and made an assumption. He could have based his age estimate on the guy’s clothes. It does not seem likely that he got a good look at his face driving by at 25 or 35 mph at night.

It seems to me you are trying very hard to discredit Foulke’s ability to provide an un-muddied description of this serial killer. Zelm’s wife said her husband carried a copy of the Z sketch, hoping to nab him. I doubt he would’ve carried an inaccurate sketch, and I am sure that if Foulke, the driver, got a decent look at the guy, then Zelms did too. By the way, Zelm’s wife also confirmed her husband and Foulke did stop and speak to Z.

What does "muddying the waters" mean, if not steering the investigation off course?

And wouldn’t catching Z be the best thing for Foulke, to make up for missing him the first time, and putting the whole thing to rest? Wouldn’t the clearest, most non-muddied description be the best approach to that end?

You’re assuming that I said that Fouke consciously made a determination to lie about the description of the person that he saw. I didn’t say that. He could have remembered the guy as being older because doing so helped his narrative. There are a great deal of studies about memory that suggest it is affected subconsciously by numerous factors. Alternatively, I don’t know what Fouke based his age estimate upon. He could have saw what he thought was grey hair and made an assumption. He could have based his age estimate on the guy’s clothes. It does not seem likely that he got a good look at his face driving by at 25 or 35 mph at night.

It seems to me you are trying very hard to discredit Foulke’s ability to provide an un-muddied description of this serial killer. Zelm’s wife said her husband carried a copy of the Z sketch, hoping to nab him. I doubt he would’ve carried an inaccurate sketch, and I am sure that if Foulke, the driver, got a decent look at the guy, then Zelms did too. By the way, Zelm’s wife also confirmed her husband and Foulke did stop and speak to Z.

Fouke also said that he had nothing to do with the sketch. He said he wasn’t even sure if Zelms saw the guy. We don’t have Zelm’s words. Who knows if Zelms’ wife relayed his words accurately. Although, I tend to believe her. If I am going to doubt what anyone said, it would Fouke. He’s all over the map.