Conversaciones con asesinos: Las cintas del Hijo de Sam

This is the result of sheer desperation on NYPD's part. It's impossible for them to honestly address the evidence that David Berkowitz was not the lone Son of Sam shooter, but they're taking advantage of growing public interest in the case by dredging up an attack with no credible link to Son of Sam (wrong caliber of weapon, wrong victim profile, shooter flees the scene with two other individuals when Berkowitz is alleged to have acted alone) and hoping that it will serve as an effective distraction.

This documentary is strictly for non-researchers, and that includes resident "Son of Sam expert" Manny Grossman, who never undertook a moment's research when I worked with him. Other people present him with material; he acts as a mouthpiece. Despite his preening as an authority on Son of Sam, he betrays a lack of confidence in his own position by launching nasty personal attacks against researchers, other podcasters and even his own listeners. Who would conduct himself in such a reprehensible manner if he actually believed that he had solved the case?

What we have here is not an examination of the evidence, but a curated presentation which OMITS abundant evidence that Son of Sam was a group effort. (The majority of that evidence was gathered by late investigative reporter Maury Terry, though other researchers - myself included - have followed in his wake.) "The Son of Sam Tapes" is nothing more than the same hole-ridden story that NYPD has been peddling for almost fifty years.

Who directed this garbage?? The Son of Sam Decent Into Darkness, just to name one, does the job well of telling the story. I got through the first episode of this one, barely, and shut it off. Not sure what the directors were thinking here, other than, let's put out the same info, change things up a bit and present it to Netflix. What a joke. I don't understand how crap like this even gets picked up. There are so many cases out there left untold, but let's continue to beat the dead horse. I guess it's easier, not much thinking or effort needed. And after reading another viewers comment about the directors trying to pin another case on Berkowitz, left out more than half of the story, is not a surprise. No effort went into this whatever u want to call it, why bother presenting all the evidence, right. Bait and switch at its finest.

I was a kid when all of this was going on. I also lived a few blocks from where the third shooting took place. (I still live a few blocks from that location but I'm east of it now instead of west of it.) Because of those reasons I'll watch pretty much anything that comes out about the killings. "Conversations with a Killer: The Son of Sam Tapes" does a pretty job telling the story. I found the actual recordings of David Berkowitz' voice uninteresting. I have no interest in listening to what a murderer has to say, especially one who keeps changing his story. I also didn't like how the show poo-poos the idea of there being more than one shooter. If it was only Berkowitz, why, all of these years later, is the case still considered open in the borough of Queens?

I kind of felt like everything that could be said about this case was said. I have become convinced that Maurice Terry's theory that there were multiple killers was pretty sound. This documentary does a good job of telling the story and showing the historic looks at NYC in the late 1970's and of making you think David Berkowitz was a more calculated and manipulative lone killer than I had previously thought. I also had no idea of the connections to Scorsese's Taxi Driver. It is really good documentary. I am not sure of the conclusion and may go back and watch Sons of Sam again.

Joe Berlinger's recent documentary fails to deliver a historically accurate or responsibly produced account of the Wendy Savino shooting-or the broader Son of Sam case. As someone who has spent years researching this case, I can say with confidence that the documentary not only includes glaring factual errors, but also gives a platform to unreliable sources and misrepresents key interview material.

Chief among the concerns is the involvement of podcaster Manny Grossman, whose work is widely regarded in the research community as riddled with disinformation. Grossman, alongside former first-grade detective Mike Lorenzo, claimed to contact the NYPD cold case unit after finding a sketch of a supposed Savino-related suspect in the Donna Lauria file. However, the Lauria case has long been suspected to be an organized crime hit-dating back to its initial investigation.

One early suspect was Vinnie Minutolo, Donna Lauria's ex-boyfriend, who owned a .44 caliber weapon and has a documented criminal history and questionable ties to organized crime. He had a documented history of stalking and harassing Lauria after their breakup. After the shooting, Jody Valente fled the state out of fear for her safety.

Despite this, Grossman recommended Minutolo for the documentary, and Berlinger included him-an editorial decision that severely undermines the film's credibility.

Even more troubling is Grossman and Lorenzo's claim that David Berkowitz was living out of his car after leaving the Cassara household on April 8, 1976, linking this transient period to the shooting of Wendy Savino the next day. This is verifiably false. Berkowitz applied for his Pine Street apartment on March 27, 1976, was approved by March 30, and moved in around April 1. His post-arrest warrant for non-payment of rent confirms he was a legal tenant at the time. He was never living in his vehicle.

When this factual discrepancy was brought to Grossman's attention, he responded by posting a selectively edited image of Berkowitz's lease application, mislabeling it a lease agreement, and attempting to mislead his audience-until he was called out for manipulating evidence. This is not only irresponsible journalism but a breach of basic research ethics.

Equally troubling is the documentary's failure to meaningfully engage with well-documented facts about Wendy Savino herself. Savino was under investigation for financial misconduct at the time of her shooting, and had been subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury in late 1976. She refused to return to the U. S. to testify. While the exact nature of that subpoena remains unclear, it coincides with ongoing scrutiny of her insurance brokerage business.

Savino had numerous connections that could have drawn attention to her case-especially after Berkowitz's arrest in August 1977. She had personal ties to Bronx District Attorney Mario Merola (with whom she reportedly had a "history") and access to publisher Christopher Hagedorn. In a FOIA release regarding her case, organized crime figure Richard J. Naclerio is mentioned, but the NYPD appears to have never questioned him. Public records show that Savino was involved in real estate ventures with Barbara Naclerio, Richard's wife. Despite this, Savino attempted to present herself as merely a "housewife"-a narrative clearly contradicted by public documentation.

This pattern of omission and distortion runs throughout the documentary. Interviews with participants were also taken out of context, giving a misleading impression of both events and individuals. Several contributors have since expressed concern about how their words were used. This has been an eye-opening experience for me in particular.

In October 2024, at Berkowitz's own request, I submitted my research on the Savino case to Berlinger's team for inclusion. At the time, they were already in post-production and understandably unable to incorporate the material. So, I opted to begin to publish my findings through a blog in order to support Berkowitz.

The final product of this documentary does nothing to advance historical understanding of the Savino shooting or the broader case. The result is a sensationalized narrative shaped by questionable sources, selective editing, and avoidable errors.

While it is understandable that there are legal challenges to presenting certain material, the documentary's editorial choices raise a larger question: if these limitations prevented the filmmakers from telling the story truthfully and accurately, would it not have been better to forgo making it at all?

Further clouding the documentary's ethical standards is Grossman's alleged violation of a non-disclosure agreement concerning the investigative files of Maury Terry. Those documents, once in the hands of filmmaker Joshua Zeman were mishandled. Zeman has yet to enforce the NDA violation with Grossman. The fallout has made Berkowitz's life extremely difficult in maximum security, culminating in his public retraction on June 8, 2023, where he stated he acted alone-an apparent attempt to end the ongoing chaos.

Berlinger's failure to properly vet Grossman is baffling, especially considering he did vet another podcaster in early 2024-reportedly at Grossman's urging. According to a credible source, Grossman spent over an hour on the phone with Berlinger to discourage him from contacting this individual for participation in the documentary.

This selective gatekeeping, coupled with a disregard for fact-checking and source reliability, seriously undermines the integrity of the project. The handling of the Wendy Savino case in particular exemplifies the dangers of blurring entertainment with investigative journalism-especially when the stakes involve organized crime, historical truth, and real lives affected by decades of misinformation.