This Is the Zodiac Speaking

After seeing this well-done and thoroughly researched series, Arthur Leigh Allen was the Zodiac Killer. Of this I am certain. Others can drone on about circumstantial evidence and speculate and doubt all they want, but anyone who doesn't think it was Allen after seeing this series is deeply in denial or just doesn't want to believe the obvious. What it really boils down to is this: many people, especially armchair detectives, love a good mystery, so much so that they hope the mystery won't be solved. When it involves infamous criminals, such cases take on a life of their own and they want the mystery to continue. So when a longstanding case is finally solved, they're actually disappointed because there's no longer any mystery in their lives. They also refuse to believe that someone other than themselves solved it. It's all rather sad.

This Is the Zodiac Speaking: A nasty guy alright, at times he wanted to encourage people to think he was Zodiac, even wrote letters to people suggesting that he had carried out the murders. But just before he died he denied it, wrote a letter which was discovered when he was found dead. Certainly some circumstantial evidence, the testimony of those families he interacted with and abused is interesting. Their memories stretching back 50 years might not be so reliable though as to his actions in proximity to attack sites. Maybe he was just a sad petty predator who had dreams of being an infamous serial killer. Still the series is worth watching even I think it could have been done in 2 rather than 3 episodes. Directed by Phil Lott and Ari Mark. On Netflix. 7/10.

"Zodiac Killer" is the first serial killer that intrigued me. I was maybe 8 years old when I first saw a documentary about him. Since then, I have been returning to the topic from time to time, listening to podcasts on the subject and generally being interested in new facts in the investigation. I've watched a lot of documentaries on the subject, listened to podcasts, and even read books, so I had to see this documentary as well. Was it possible to create a complete film about this monster in human skin this time?

No. But it doesn't matter at all, because this film is very close to being a perfect summary of a long-term investigation for those who have been following the case for a long time, and at the same time to be a shortcut for those who only know about Zodiac from David Fincher's film.

So why did the film get a 7/10 from me and not a 9/10, if it is "almost perfect"? Because in my opinion it is too fictionalized. There are too many unnecessary stories, too many digressions and asking questions, and not enough accurate presentation of the facts about Zodiac.

Nevertheless, it is worth watching this film to judge for yourself whether the way it is presented suits your taste. For me, it was slightly too long for the amount of information it gives. It could easily have had two episodes instead of three, if only those genre scenes, which did not add much to the film, were abandoned.

Most of us have seen the Fincher movie covering the facts ( but having watched this series , the aforementioned facts are brought into question ) , but if you haven't , I'd recommend that you do , to give a reasonable perspective . A serial killer - one of several at the time - terrorised the California area throughout the sixties and seventies . Part of his modus operandi was taunting both the Press and the Police departments of the affected crime scenes . The movie was released in 2007 and they couldn't portray several details as the prime suspect was at that point unproven . This series unravels why and it doesn't show the detectives in the original investigation in a great light . Add to that , the incredible involvement of a whole family , who could be deemed complicit , if not naive in the extreme .

After having watched the movie Zodiac many times I watched this hoping I would get a lot more evidence one way or another. This documentary certainly does provide a fair amount of evidence suggesting that it was in fact Arthur Leigh Allen. Based on what it shows and what I know previously if I had to bet it would be that it was him. However , not to say Graysmith is wrong , but the entire theories presented do always seem to come through him. I had some suspicion while watching that this was the case in this as well.

What I've realized is that there was simply nothing to really stick to Allen outside of circumstantial evidence . For crimes of this scope the threshold level for evidence is quite high.

In the end the accounts of the children grown up I found very interesting and certainly made me believe it was Allen even more. However, after reflection I still would need to see DNA that was not found. There certainly was huge motivation to get this guy, but their unwillingness to try him for all the crimes shows that the attorneys couldn't build a case to meet the thresholds.

Overall on a private level, I do believe it was him. From a legal perspective , I would need something larger in terms of evidence, which clearly is why it is still considered a cold case.

For all the Zodiac victims sakes I do hope they find something extremely conclusive. It's horrid Zodiac was able to get away with this level of evil.