Most Helpful Customer Reviews
33 of 37 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The controversy is compelling, the read is even better., February 6, 2002
This review is from: This Is the Zodiac Speaking: Into the Mind of a Serial Killer (Hardcover)
I find it interesting how much controversy has been stirred up by this excellent book. For example, reading the other reviews, I noticed one by Bill Nelson. This gentleman attempted to write a book that connected Charles Manson and his "family" with Zodiac. It was one of the most horrific books I've ever seen, filled with errors, typos on every page, and virtually unreadable. Yet, he somehow finds this book difficult to manage. One has to wonder about his motivation. The truth is that this is an excellent read. However, it takes a very different position on the Zodiac killer. In essence, the authors find that this killer was anything but a genius. He was, in fact, brutal, not particularly educated but naturally bright and manipulative. In othe words, much like one would expect from his crimes. However, this concept apparently upsets any number of alleged "Zodiac investigators" who consistently portray the killer as some kind of demigod of exceptional genius. This point of controversy may lie at the heart of why this book has received so many glowing reviews and a few absolute "pans." It is clear from the "pans" that they were written by alleged "Zodiac investigators" who seem to hold fast to the killer as something special. This obviously flies in the face of what the authors of this book believe. It also would seem to fly in the face of common sense, at least from a law enforcement perspective. Is is possible that by portraying the Zodiac killer as a rather ordinary, definitely sick, and clearly evil individual these "Zodiac investigators" have, themselves, been brought to a more mundane role? It would seem so. This is an fine read, different, and definitely controversial. For those who have a closed mind about the Zodiac killer, or view themselves as the ultimate authorities about a crime that has never been solved, it can be unsettling. For those who want a better understanding of this killer, it's a must read.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
34 of 41 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
the zodiac speaks!, April 13, 2003
This review is from: This Is the Zodiac Speaking: Into the Mind of a Serial Killer (Hardcover)
This is in my opinion slightly better than Robert Graysmith's Zodiac but it does get bogged down with the information of the analysis of the letters.However, this book discounts a few theories about the Zodiac.It denies that Zodiac was a brilliant killer. It denies that Zodiac intentionally created a Z around the city when he did his crimes, the author stating it was more a connect-the-dots connection that was weak by any stretch of the imagination.Another popular theory was that Zodiac only killed near water. This book discounts that theory too, saying that San Francisco is surrounded by water on three sides.Yet another speculation was that Zodiac was brilliant in eluding the authorities when there was evidence to the contrary. Two policemen stopped him after he killed Paul Stine, a taxi driver, and if it wasn't for a wrong description about the killer (the description was of a black man) Zodiac would have been apprehended.There is more speculation about that too, that Zodiac would not have been so easily arrested; he would have put up a fight. I also think that the suspect in Graysmith's Zodiac Unmasked was not Zodiac because he was cleared through finger-printing. Zodiac had sloppily left two partial finger-prints on a taxi after he killed Paul Stine. This book does more of a psychological profile than Zodiac and much of it made sense, I think the author got it right about the Zodiac. The author, Kelleher, and David Van Nuys, Chair of the Psychology Department in a Northern Californian University, differ occasionally in their opinions about the Zodiac, but mostly agree. Van Nuys claims that Zodiac had a multiple personality disorder, brought on from a childhood trauma. Van Nuys claims that possibly he was sexually abused and had a dominant father.He states that the normal well -adjusted personality didn't know what the Zodiac personality was doing and vice versa. The book goes on to say that Zodiac, if he still was alive,he would be looking back on his crimes now and may have been horrified by them. Van Nuys claims that possibly the good personality might have won over the Zodiac personlity. Or possibly Zodiac had committed suicide or was dead as a result of age...if he was alive he would probably be in his mid sixties. This book doesn't really come up with any good suspects although that has been done before with other books and failed to yield results. The suspects in Graysmith's book Zodiac, I believe were not Zodiac so this subsequent book doesn't go into suspects...I think it adds to the mystery. ****&a half.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
17 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Best book ever written on the Zodiac case, April 23, 2002
This review is from: This Is the Zodiac Speaking: Into the Mind of a Serial Killer (Hardcover)
This is the Zodiac Speaking is a joint venture with David Van Nuys, Ph.D. and is a must-have for any serious researcher. The book paints a picture of an exceptionally cold-hearted killer whose propensity for violence was surpassed only by his incredible ability to play the media and to constantly adapt and evolve, a tactic that allowed him to stay several steps ahead of the police at all times. Kelleher and Van Nuys stick to the known facts of the case and don't repeat the glaring mistakes that other authors and researchers have made in this case (such as focusing on a single suspect or claiming to have "solved" the Zodiac murders). Scholarly, well-written and highly recommended!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
