This Is the Zodiac Speaking

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 .

A family welcome in big and burly teacher, Arthur Leigh Allen into their world, he seems perfect, caring and considerate, but could he potentially be The Zodiac killer, a masked figure, who's claimed several victims, and delights in tormenting The Authorities.

A well known story, a fairly infamous serial killer, one that of course inspired an excellent movie adaptation.

It's revealing and shocking in equal measure, with some fascinating first hand interviews, with people who knew Allen well.

It's well paced and well produced, it will keep you on your toes, it does tail off a little bit in the third episode, but those behind it can't be blamed, as there's no resolution, only theories.

It's a story that's always intrigued me, and I've never had any doubts as to Allen's guilt, this three last series did nothing to change my mind, I still believe he's guilty, I'm just stunned they weren't able to convict him.

8/10.

Zodiac is one of my favorite films of all time, and this doc adds a new compelling layer to it; a companion piece, sort of. Interviews include the real Robert Graysmith and footage of Arthur Leigh Allen and the people he hurt. It confirms how much attention to detail was put into the movie, and how important it was to some people who interacted with the main suspect. There is a lot of information I wasn't aware of and unlike most unsolved serial killer documentaries where they almost leave you wondering what the point of what you watched was, this one provides some semblance of closure. It's absolutely compelling and worth a watch.

"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.

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.