Myth of the Zodiac Killer

I've seen many documentaries over the years on the Zodiac Killer as well as David Fincher's Zodiac film. Myth of the Zodiac Killer is by far the worst of them all. There is not a single shred of actual investigation done during this documentary despite it being well presented. That is the only positive I can give it. This documentary is a disgrace to the victims and everyone who has been affected by the murders. Thomas Henry Horan puts on his tin foil hat in an attempt to become famous. Robert Greysmith wasn't mentioned even once throughout this two part doc. Horan's theory of the Zodiac Killer being simply a hoax is preposterous and holds zero weight.

This dude's conspiracy theories are weak at best. To say he reaches really far for his nonsensical ideas would be an understatement. What a waste of time. He doesn't come across as reputable or knowledgeable. He comes across as just some dude that decided to come up with whatever nonsense he could to sell a book filled with complete nonsense. I keep using that word because that's exactly what this whole thing is...nonsense. I even tried to get into it and try to enjoy it as a mockumentary and I couldn't even do that. Make your own judgement if you choose to watch. I wish I hadn't wasted the time.

Where do I even begin to describe the absolute abomination calling himself some sort of Zodiac 'expert'? Tom Horan has a podcast and loves attention, and what better way to take in money over the brutal deaths of numerous people than to hurl ridiculous and insane theories with no proof whatsoever, with an unbelievably oblivious filmmaker? If this is what qualifies as a means to funding your picture, there's many of us who've lived long enough to go ahead and pull funds to do the same.

I'm not quite sure what qualifies him (Horan)- he proclaims that he's read all evidentiary information, every single news article, and since he's an English professor AND teaches journalism (this explains a lot in regards to our current state of what's now called journalism) he's now an expert. This somehow gives enough credentials to now make wild accusations and distortion of facts regarding the murders presumably perpetrated by 'Zodiac'.

What's worse is there's little to no resistance to the inflammatory and insidious attacks pushed into the ethos by this hacktivist. I would suppose that to present valid arguments against the insanity would completely negate making 2 episodes and the ultimate conclusion would be there's no 'there' there.

Even these other experts brought in to prop up this narrative are so unbelievably naive- as an example, the linguists. There's a rather bold proclamation that it's impossible to change handwriting and specific grammar in order to write many different letters and be seen as written by the same person, when there's supposedly so many inconsistencies that make it all but factual that more than one has written them. This, in and of itself, tells anyone with functioning brain cells that it is not only wrong but incredulous to assume.

I'm certain that journalists have completely lost their way (and minds) but it seems that filmmakers and financiers of said films have also sunken into a sort of delusional mindset, and one that suggests that you can say the most ridiculous things if you wait long enough so that almost everyone associated is either deceased, lost or no longer able to be interviewed for a multitude of reasons.

Make no mistake, I believe there exists evidence to suggest this may not have been the work of one person, but this simply doesn't put forth any verifiable evidence to support this cheap lawn chair of a production. If you're a student being instructed by Horan, I'd be demanding a full refund.

There is no investigation going on in this documentary. I've seen just about every Zodiac doc and I'm guessing all the participants in those films think this thing is a farce.

The main problem is the director seems to have done no research, himself. Instead, he features this English professor, Thomas Horan, who is a Zodiac hobbyist. Horan jumps to conclusions and makes nutzo claims like he's the only Zodiac researcher 'who has read all material on the case'. He has no way of knowing that and the claim itself blows his credibility.

At one of the crime scenes, based on the location of a shell casing, he proclaims it proves that the shooter was on the passenger side shooting over the hood of the car. That itself is a huge leap. And from this he 'deduces' there were two killers. This is a ridiculous reach and this guy has NO forensic training, whatsoever.

Horan is not qualified as an investigator and is working backwards from his thesis. That is bad investigative technique and bad science. This is every bit as weak as any of NIck Broomfield's docs on the Biggie and Trupac Murders. If you are going to put out a true crime documentary you have to at least do INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM. There is nothing like that going on, here. It's just some retired professor spinning theories without the rigor to drop test them.

The only interesting segment is the AI evaluation of the handwriting but even that is inconclusive. If you watch this 'documentary' you will know less about the Zodiac than if never watched it at all.

This "professor" is quite simply a dolt! Unless they are attempting to assault the killers ego as a single individual responsible AND force him into the light to defend his "life's work" It's embarrassing that this was made, I condemn Nock for following this as his subject but overall I understand why he chose to do so - HOWEVER again I must state thay reviewing a documentary is a particularly unique challenge - do you review the subject of the film or do you review the merits of the film making? Me personally, I try not to judge the documentary on the nature of the subject, whether it be an individual human, a group of humans, nature or simply an event that's transpired - that being said, based solely on the technical merits (and because this proves Bart Simpson grew up to be a ner'do'well) I have to, begrudgingly give it a 6.