zodiac

Zodiac

So I saw David Fincher's, Zodiac when it first came out last year. I

remember leaving the theatre at 1am and having a strange feeling that

the Zodiac could be anywhere. They never did catch the guy, and

although the prime suspect seems like a good candidate for the Zodiac

killer, everything was based upon circumstantial evidence. These are

all very disturbing thoughts when it's the middle of the night and

you're one of about 10 cars in a dark parking lot. The movie was

excellent (yet very disturbing to watch at times--be warned!), but

doesn't come near to the amount of detail and information that Robert

Graysmith provides in the two books that were used as source material

for the film.

In the first book, Zodiac, Graysmith details the facts of the case. He

focuses not only on the seven-known Zodiac murders and victims (Betty

Lou Jensen, David Faraday, Darlene Farrin, Cecelia Shepherd and Paul

Stine--Michael Mageau and Byran Hartnell) but also upon other murders

that seem to fit the Zodiac's modus operandi, from Riverside to Lake

Tahoe to Santa Rosa, California. Graysmith further speculates how the

Zodiac chose his times of attacks and presents three good suspects for

who the Zodiac might be. He eventually settles upon one of these, but

to be honest all of them are very freaky to read about.

Zodiac Unmasked focuses upon the suspect that most closely matches who

the Zodiac could be. The book assumes that the reader is already

versed in the facts written about in the first book and specifically

compares the profile of the Zodiac to the Prime Suspect. He examines

how Arthur Leigh Allen (the prime suspect) came to be considered by

the police and details the facts of their investigation against him.

He further looks into the clues that Zodiac left police, (maps,

letters, ciphers, the killer's M.O., etc.) and compares how many of

these match with the background of Allen. But Graysmith does also

point out that this is all circumstantial. Allen may be the best

suspect, but despite the mountain of evidence and circumstances, no

handwriting, fingerprints or DNA ever matched him. It's all very

frustrating yet fascinating at the same time. But I do appreciate how

although Graysmith believes Allen is the Zodiac he leaves the decision

up to the reader. This book is his reason for why he believes what he

believes.

This December will mark 40 years since the first Zodiac murders. It's

amazing to me that so much of this case still remains a mystery. If

you're interested in true crime, both books are great reads, (albeit

very morbid). I should warn, however, that there is so much detail in

the second book that it could get bogged down at times. My own

curiosity never made this an issue for me, (I typically have to know

everything about something I'm interested in), but I can see how this

might be slow reading for others. Nevertheless, Caesar says three