Myth of the Zodiac Killer

Even though I may not agree on every point that they're trying to make, it still was done well enough to get my wheels turning. Was it actually all just a ruse? The most prolific cold case in American History, is it all fake? Honestly after watching this documentary, I am now stuck in the middle.

Like everyone else, I'm sure, I didn't even question the facts of the case, thinking it was just 1 guy sending letters claiming the kills. After this documentary, I'm not entirely convinced now.

This doc is incredibly well done. It was intense, the structure was incredible, and I really wanted more episodes. Do yourself a favor if you enjoy true crime, watch this!

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.

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 "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.

This was a complete disaster of fact checking regarding the case of the Zodiac. It tried SO hard to get me on the conspiracy bandwagon -that the spirit of the zodiac himself- (I believe) shot and slashed the tires off the wagon himself just minutes in. I kept watching, but it just seems more and more inexplicable and poorly "acted" out. Unwell and undone. Not to mention you make fun of some old man with bad teeth claiming to be an ex of a victim. Lots of smoke on this one! Also, to feel like you're connected to a story, it needs producers from the Bay Area to understand California and our history and not someone from Europe. Lastly, main character is way too hyped up, tone it down. You did not break this case, you might have broke some innocent families reputations though. Hmmm... suspicious media hounds. Sigh.