Soy Zodiac

"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.

The Zodiac Killer must be one of the most compelling cases in the history of forensics.

A monstrous being, ahead of its time.

When you read the stories you can't help but feel sorry for the victims, their families and the police. No one was prepared for a being of this magnitude.

This miniseries gives us a very interesting point of view.

Arthur Leigh Allen was always the number 1 suspect, all the circumstantial evidence, the fact that he had been in the area of several murders on the same days that they occurred and even his identification by the survivors.

However, he could never be locked up and died prematurely from his kidney disease.

In the Seawater stories there is so much pain, so much darkness lived, so many traces followed that it is impossible not to follow this conjecture. ALA was the Zodiac Killer, without a doubt. Egomaniac, narcissist, abuser, with extremely useful skills and talents... all the combo to do what he surely did.

It's a shame that David has passed away and will not be able to see the end of this story. I am left frozen by the bond with his mother and how she was/could have been an accomplice to this for so many years. A destroyed family, a sister who would clearly be one of the next victims and who was saved by a miracle.

Finally, the hope that the knife he gave to Connie's son will finally reveal that truth that has been awaited for more than 50 years...

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.

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 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.