Zodiac: The Shocking True Story of the Nation's Most Bizarre Mass Murderer

I'm shocked by the reviewers who read this and didn't think Arthur Leigh Allen was the Zodiac. It reaches a point where an unbelievable number of coincidences, and identifications from witnesses and victims are too compelling to consider otherwise.Yes, Leigh's fingertips didn't match. Yes, his handwriting didn't match. Yes, they never found a "smoking gun." Leigh was an intelligent person who took considerable precautions to ensure he wouldn't get caught. Plus, there is no proof the fingerprints in question were from the Zodiac. They could have come from a number of different people (they did not get elimination prints from everyone at the scene).As for peoople who didn't like the way the book was written, keep it mind this is not a mystery novel. Events were written in chronological order and often required additional information so the reader would understand.I agree that some material is repeated and could have done without some of it myself. If you're interested at all in this case, the overwhelming amount of research and information is worth such a minor flaw.

was a bit unsure about getting this book, since ALA is Graysmith's pet suspect in the Zodiac case. However, there are tidbits about ALA I didn't know, and we also get to read what law enforcement thought of ALA as a suspect. Lots of the book quotes investigators and experts, which lends substance to Graysmith's ALA case, but regardless of the circumstantial evidence, I'm still not fully convinced it was ALA, mainly b/c it makes him the dumbest criminal ever, to announce everything to Don Cheney before he committed the crimes. Cheney had an axe to grind against ALA, as did Ralph Spinelli (facing federal prison time) so I have to keep that in mind while reading. That said, there are some cool tidbits in the book. Recommended if you're following the Zodiac case.

This is an amazing book on the Zodiac case but the mental health mistakes detract from what is otherwise a carefully documented case. Similar to the mistakes Ann Rule makes in her book on Ted Bundy, Graysmith perpetuates a lot of misconceptions about mental health. If he ever does another edition of the book I hope he'll correct these. The author took great pains to give attention to detail on many counts and could do so with mental health issues too. Mistakes that should be addressed include:*P. 58 "Leigh Allen is a schizophrenic personality" according to someone named Tucker. Granted Tucker is a lay person and wouldn't know there is no such thing (there is Schizophrenia; Schizotypal Personality Disorder and Schizoid Personality Disorder - the last two may be deleted when the DSM-V comes out). Graysmith could note this in a footnote.*P. 131. "I wonder if Leigh had other personalities" This statement is in reference to how Allen might have changed his handwriting (this comes up on p . 291 too). The problem is there is no evidence that people can change their handwriting in Dissociative Identity Disorder (formerly Multiple Personality Disorder). The very idea of multiple personalities is suspect - we really can't even define what a "personality" is. The romanticizing and exaggerating of DID is just that and the media is swamped with such misinformation.*Interesting reference to Jung's "Syzygy" on page 159. This comes up in Jung's Alchemical Studies (p. 232) referring to either of 2 opposite points in the orbit of a heavenly body - especially the moon - where it is in conjunction with or opposite to the sun. This is supposedly linked to the idea that the position of heavenly bodies affects human emotions (this position has not garnered much support in controlled studies). Graysmith notes on p. 159 that "...electromagnetic field changes of full and new moon phases, changes that affect the human nervous system and increase the brain's nervous activity." Down the page he claims MRI studies support the effect of the moon on biological tissue. A footnote is critical here as this is, as far as I know, an unsubstantiated claim. In 2010 a paper published in Actas Españolas De Psiquiatría ("Emergency psychiatric condition, mental illness behavior and lunar cycles: Is there a real or an imaginary association"?) concluded "The only empirical relationship of the moon phases with psychiatric behavior of the mentally ill in our sample was manifested as an increase in the incidence of cases and greater disruption of sleep patterns." Another paper published in 2008 in Current Biology (Human responses to geophysical daily, annual and lunar cycles) concluded "Lunar cycles had, and continue to have, an influence upon human culture, though despite a persistent belief that our mental health and other behaviours are modulated by the phase of the moon, there is no solid evidence that human biology is in any way regulated by the lunarcycle." To be fair I did find one study from Bosnia that suggested a correlation between lunar cycles and seizure activity in children but the results were preliminary and tentative.*On p. 162 Graysmith writes "once a paranoid schizophrenic is into his mid-thirties (if he does not kill himself), the rage may burn itself out or go into remission. If Zodiac had symbolically died, then the killer might lead the rest of his life uneventfully. He might not recall he had once been Zodiac" This is highly unlikely. First off Schizophrenia proper (paranoid and otherwise) does not go into remission. As far as we know it is a chronic condition. It seems that Graysmith is referring to Anti-Social Personality Disorder here - that can "mellow" with age but the chance of someone totally blocking out violent memories is almost "nil." People who have been traumatized suffer from the memories which is why they get PTSD. If they could fully block them out they may not develop PTSD. Again on p. 177 Graysmith refers to "lock the details of his acts out of his consciousness." There is no evidence I know of that people can do this. If the author is aware of any, he should add a footnote.*Similar to the last note on p. 317 Graysmith notes that psychopaths "usually outgrow it in their later years..." and this would be true in some cases of AntiSocial Personality Disorder. Some, but not all.*P. 209 Graysmith refers to a conversation where "five different personalities" are discussed. As noted above, it doesn't work like this.*There are a lot of references to hypnosis beginning on p. 210. It should be noted that currently there is debate on whether or not there is any state of consciousness called a "hypnotic trance" that is qualitatively different from waking consciousness. See my chapter on States of Consciousness in Integral Psychotherapy: Inside Out/Outside In*On page 231 Graysmith writes of discussions with psychiatrists where psychosis and schizophrenia are discussed in psychodynamic terms. The condition today is believed to be a brain disease though we still have not figured out the etiology. The psychodynamic interpretations, while sexier and more compelling in written form, are not valid. To be fair at the time the Zodiac suspect was treated (1970s) psychodynamic thinking was still in vogue.*P. 269 the author uses the word "schizophrenic" to refer to multiple personalities. This is totally wrong ("His Jekyll-Hyde quality depicted the schizophrenic qualities of a cultured man possessed by bestial desires"). This is a common misunderstanding in the lay public but should be corrected in books claiming to pay attention to detail. The word "schizophrenia" is used so many ways in this book the reader is left to wonder what Graysmith actually means by it.*P. 281 Graysmith uses the phrase "borderline psychotic" but it is a meaningless term. It also perpetuates the negative practice of referring to people by their symptoms or states of mind which dehumanizes patients. To be fair, this is common in the lay public but Graysmith should avoid perpetuating the misunderstanding.Again, don't get me wrong - I really learned a lot in reading this book and admire the dedication Graysmith practiced in pulling all this together. My guess is that with Zodiac we were dealing with Anti-Social Personality Disorder overall. He seemed too organized to suffer from any form of Schizophrenia.

No one knows more about the Zodiac case than Robert Graysmith. He spent a long time obsessed over this case and I personally believe he discovered who Zodiac really was. Read the books and see the movie, both are amazing!

While the subject of the Zodiac murderer has intrigued me since the mid-eighties, I found this book a bit of a disappointment. There is much speculation in the book without any hard evidence. It seems to reveal mostly coincidence which is left to subjective interpretation.The book also seems a bit incoherent. There are tons of investigators quoted in the book but there is no cohesion to chapters. I reviewed it as "It's O.K." because of the subject matter and I respect the author. I just don't think that we will ever know the truth behind this serial killer.

Graysmith's updated version is pretty good. If you read the various online Zodiac forums everyone has their favorite "flavor of the month" suspect. Ross Sullivan is hot right now. Forced to choose...with a gun to my head...I think ALA is the best of the lot. Not because I just finished the book, but most all Zodiac roads run past him. I understand...we have no DNA match , no handwriting determinations, no good prints and still no other absolutes that would totally put the stopper in the bottle for ALA. For that matter we have no conclusive evidence that fingers anyone.This case happened in a crazy era for this country in a crazy area in the US. So many leads. So many strange things like the Chronicle classified...Zodiac your partner is in deep real estate...and the fatal auto accident the next day. Zodiac team? Who knows. Most everyone involved in the case is long dead.

Chulo

What an amazing book, I couldn’t put it down!

"Zodiac Unmasked" (2002) ist der Nachschlag zu "Zodiac" aus dem Jahre 1986. Beides Bücher von Robert Graysmith, dem ehemaligen Karikaturisten des "San Francisco Chronicle".In den Büchern geht es um Morde, die in der San Francisco Bay Area in den Jahren 1968 und 1969 von einem Täter begangen wurden, der sich selber in Telefonaten und Briefen als "Zodiac" bezeichnete. Graysmith arbeitete zu der Zeit beim "San Francisco Chronicle", der auch Briefe von Zodiac erhielt. Seine Informationen sind also aus erster Hand, weshalb seine Bücher zu dem Fall als Standardwerke gelten.Die Zodiac-Morde sind nach wie vor als ungelöst. Dennoch legt sich Graysmith auf einen Täter fest. In "Zodiac Unmasked" nennt er seinen Verdächtigen beim richtigen Namen, während er im 1986er-Buch noch das Pseudonym "Robert Hall Starr" verwendete. Zudem fokussiert sich das zweite Buch sehr stark auf diese Person, während man beim ersten noch eine "objektivere" Darstellung vorfand, was andere Verdächtige angeht.Ich habe "Zodiac Unmasked" mit vier Sternen bewertet, weil es wie gesagt ein Standardwerk ist. Es gibt nichts Besseres zu dem Thema. So gesehen hätte ich natürlich auch fünf Sterne geben können, aber die literarische Qualität des Buches ist grauenhaft (was ebenso das 1986er-Buch betrifft). Graysmith erfindet innere Monologe von Opfern und Verdächtigen, als wüsste er, was diese gedacht haben. Er glaubt wohl, das mache die Geschichte "plastischer". Bei mir erzeugt das aber nur Kopfschmerzen.Nun kann man sagen, Graysmith ist halt Karikaturist und kein Schriftsteller. Aber sein Spezi beim "Chronicle", der Journalist Paul Avery, hätte ihm sagen können, dass solche Faxen kein erzähltechnisch gutes Buch ergeben.Fazit:Wer an dem Fall interessiert ist, kommt an den Graysmith-Büchern nicht vorbei. Ich glaube nicht, dass es der Verdächtige war, den Graysmith benennt, aber das ist eine andere Geschichte.

The first book paints the big picture. This one drives you inside the creepy life of the killer.

L'auteur est persuadé d'avoir mis le doigt sur le suspect et si il apparait plutôt détaillé, il en devient à force désordonné et le narratif en perd d'intérêt, jusqu'à une synthèse inexistante. Peut-être parce que cela montrerai les incohérences et le manque de vision sur les autres suspects possiblesCa reste une enquête très intéressante et documentée mais pas vraiment impartial.