The Zodiac Killer

[Rapunzel676]

Butterfield is as obsessed with Zodiac as Graysmith is and undoubtedly considers Graysmith a rival for expert status. Both men are equally equipped and qualified as experts on the case, and Butterfield's website is a goldmine of Zodiac material. However, his charge that Graysmith deliberately attempts to mislead by manufacturing evidence is not supported by the facts. Some theories put forward by Graysmith may be weak and their validity questionable, but I think it's more a case of him keeping an open mind and considering all possibilities than deliberately falsifying facts. Without getting into an argument on this, I suggest reading all the available evidence on the case with an open mind and drawing your own conclusions.

John

I couldn't agree more, and the same can be said for the other Zodiac "expert," Tom Voigt of zodiackiller.com. While I do believe that Graysmith got some of his facts wrong (as did many of the authors of the first Ripper books) and disagree with his conclusions, I think his book is a solid introduction to the case. It troubles me that the owners of the two best Zodiac sites -- as well as their members -- show such disdain for him and refuse to acknowledge that were it not for Graysmith, many of us would not have even heard of the Zodiac. Similarly, it's unlikely that the city of San Francisco would have spent the time and money to run the DNA tests that have ruled out many suspects without the interest people like Voigt and Butterfield have managed to sustain over the years. I don't care for Voigt (or some of his methods) personally but I would never dismiss the contributions he's made to the field of Zodiac research.

As far as Gareth Penn goes, I think the piece Michael O'Hare wrote for The Washington Times pretty much says it all. You can find it on Butterfield's site, http://www.zodiackillerfacts.com/gareth.htm slightly more than midway down the page. I think Penn is a very smart guy and I admire his zeal in going after the truth, but I cannot agree with his conclusion or his methods.

What's left to say about Allen? If it weren't for the fact that he was a pedophile I might actually feel sorry for him. He clearly wasn't the Zodiac. I don't think any of the other named suspects make good candidates, either. The only conclusion I can tentatively support is the one reached in This is the Zodiac Speaking, by Michael Kelleher and Dr. David Van Nuys (a professor of psychology) after Van Nuys' exhaustive analysis of the Zodiac's letters. I don't want to spoil it for anyone who has an interest in reading the book, but the case they make for Zodiac's fate is a logical and compelling one.

[Dr. John Watson]

Im currently reading "Times 17" by Gareth Penn - one the most astoundingly intricate "true crime" books you will ever read. They are incredbily rare and I got mine (one of only two copies I could find online anywhere) for $100.

Its basically solving the case using complicated mathematical code, radians, military code breaking etc to fit everything from letters to crime scenes to one man and its pretty genius. Apparently everyone that reads it cant believe the authors suspect isnt behind bars - its THAT convincing, here is a little about the author: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gareth_Penn

This 378-page book is either a testiment to one man's magnificant obsession or the delusional reasonings of a paranoid schizophrenic. No one can argue the extent to which Mr. Penn has researched and documented his case against university professor Michael O'Hare. If you begin this fascinating book, it will be difficult to put it down; and if you can finish the book, you might actually believe O'Hare was Zodiac. I did - for about 15 minutes. Then I returned to realilty. I'm not suggesting that Mr. Penn is psychotic, but his Times 17 did remind me of a psychoanalytic case study presented by Robert Lindner in The Fifty Minute Hour. In it, Dr. Lindner describes a patient who was so detailed and convincing in his claim that he was a space traveler, that over time the doctor actually begins to believe the delusion. At any rate, both books are certainly worth the read - if you can find them.

John

[Dr. John Watson]

The problem with Graysmith's book is not just that he is overly focused on one suspect, or that some of his information is inaccurate. Its that he completely FABRICATED some evidence in order to implicate his favorite suspect Allen.

If you have the time watch these YouTube clips produced by Michael Butterfield which lays out much of the false information that was put out by Graysmith.

Butterfield is as obsessed with Zodiac as Graysmith is and undoubtedly considers Graysmith a rival for expert status. Both men are equally equipped and qualified as experts on the case, and Butterfield's website is a goldmine of Zodiac material. However, his charge that Graysmith deliberately attempts to mislead by manufacturing evidence is not supported by the facts. Some theories put forward by Graysmith may be weak and their validity questionable, but I think it's more a case of him keeping an open mind and considering all possibilities than deliberately falsifying facts. Without getting into an argument on this, I suggest reading all the available evidence on the case with an open mind and drawing your own conclusions.

John

[TomTomKent]

I do't know if arthur Allen Leigh (speeling?) was a good suspect for the Zodiac killings, but Graysmith certainly builds a feasible case for him being responsible to the roadside slayings and attempted kidnappings that Zodiac did not take credit for in his letters. Both Zodiac books by Graysmith are enjoyable reads despite clear flaws.

[AdamWalsh]

Im currently reading "Times 17" by Gareth Penn - one the most astoundingly intricate "true crime" books you will ever read. They are incredbily rare and I got mine (one of only two copies I could find online anywhere) for $100.

Its basically solving the case using complicated mathematical code, radians, military code breaking etc to fit everything from letters to crime scenes to one man and its pretty genius. Apparently everyone that reads it cant believe the authors suspect isnt behind bars - its THAT convincing, here is a little about the author: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gareth_Penn

[Rapunzel676]

This may be self-evident, but does anyone else think Zodiac was trying to imitate "Jack's" style in his (Zodiac's) communications with the police and press? There are some other interesting parallels but this is one that has particularly piqued my interest.

[sdreid]

I believe Zodiac is going to be covered on MysteryQuest, a new show on the History Channel. They show the case in the promo for the one hour program but don't give a broadcast date. By all indications, it's at least two weeks (perhaps many weeks) out.

[Ryan_Miller]

In some ways I feel like the "Zodiac" Movie is like "From Hell" they take the most popular suspects, pop them into the plot and make it happen. This is great for Hollywood and entertainment sake (also understanding that the movies aren't made to produce facts as much as dollars), and I do enjoy both movies immensely. I just don't really think the Arthur Leigh Allen is the killer, though I believe kensei makes some good points. I actually am starting to wonder more about Jack Tarrance though. Has there been anymore work done investigating the Tarrance theory?

[Pinkerton]

The problem with Graysmith's book is not just that he is overly focused on one suspect, or that some of his information is inaccurate. Its that he completely FABRICATED some evidence in order to implicate his favorite suspect Allen.

If you have the time watch these YouTube clips produced by Michael Butterfield which lays out much of the false information that was put out by Graysmith.

http://www.zodiackillerfacts.com/graysmith.htm

[sdreid]

Allen enjoyed the attention.

[kensei]

I loved the movie "Zodiac" and though I know Robert Graysmith has many detractors and has gotten some things wrong, I guess I like to root for the underdog and I do believe he is correct that Arthur Leigh Allen was the Zodiac. Its often pointed out that the hard evidence failed to implicate him and that only circumstancial evidence points to him. But the hard evidence is in dispute- maybe the fingerprint found in Paul Stine's cab wasn't really made by the killer, maybe a psychopath's handwriting can be altered when he goes into a personality change, and the letter used to test for DNA has been disputed as being a genuine Zodiac letter (or even if it was he could have had someone else lick it for him). And as for circumstancial evidence, I've never understood why it should be considered synonymous with "worthless," especially when there is a veritable mountain of it against someone. And Graysmith is hardly the only player in the case who shares that theory. If anyone's opinion should count it is Inspector Dave Toschi (played by Mark Ruffalo in the movie), who also believes Allen was the Zodiac.

For a full run-down of the evidence that points to Allen, see the Bawart Report, a 30-point study by Vallejo detective George Bawart produced in 1992 when an arrest of Allen was actually being considered. (He died before it could take place.) The report is reproduced in full in Graysmith's 2002 book "Zodiac Unmasked," and here on the zodiackiller website:

http://www.zodiackiller.com/Bawart1.html

Taken all at once, it is hard if not impossible to brush off.

[JennyL]

Like the director I lived in the bay area and was a little kid when the Zodiac killings went on, and the film is in my opinion is brilliant--one of the most accurate and haunting period pieces of those times ever achieved. It's more about searching for a killer, procedure and obsession than who really did it(though the film's implied conclusion is in line with the book it's based on).

I was curious too as too how much of it adhered to the facts; googling turned up a page dedicated to a "fact vs. fiction" list of inaccuracies. Even so the murders themselves were meticulously recreated, and I didn't think the deviations that were made were whoppers-they were trivial by Hollywood standards.

[sdreid]

The Jake Gyllenhaal movie was on TV late last night.

I actually like the film The Zodiac (not to be confused with some trash that came out at about the same time and with similar titles) that came out the year before this one better I think. Both are good.

[sdreid]

Hi Maurice,

The book is a good overview so I think it's worth the read. Yes, I don't think Allen is the guy. None of the hard evidence matched him despite the volume of circumstantial stuff.

[The Grave Maurice]

Thanks, Stan. Have you read the book? Is it worth getting?

Given your edit, I assume you think that Graysmith is off the mark.