Customer Reviews

Zodiac Unmasked: The Identity of America's Most Elusive Serial Killer Revealed

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(12)
3 star:		(12)
2 star:		(16)
1 star:		(21)

 

 

It is true that this book is not as engaging and riveting as the first. For some reason though, some people have it out for the author Graysmith. This book is based on and is a literal text of Graysmith's thought process. Like anyone's thought process, this doesn't mean that it's all based entirely in fact. As I said in my review of "Zodiac", most police work isn't based totally in the facts but in speculation that most likely fits those facts. Being as how we weren't at the scene as the crimes were being committed, and if we had all the facts we'd know without a doubt who Zodiac was or is, speculation, whether loosely based on the facts or not, is necessary.

It is fact that Arthur Leigh Allen is the favorite suspect of many of the law enforcement officials closest to the Zodiac investigation. This book isn't how they came to that, but how Graysmith did. Graysmith is no Mike Hammer or, even a spin-off of Zodiac's favorite SFPD inspector Dave Toschi. He's a novice taking a novice's approach. This book is a good continuation of the first book, but it obviously loses a little bit because it doesn't contain the introductions to the crimes and the imagery that comes with such descriptions. I enjoyed it for what it was; don't let people deter you from this work because they have it out for the author. Read it and decide for yourself, make your own conclusions. I'm glad I did.

Zodiac Unmasked is an extraordinarily-detailed, highly entertaining book. I recommend it to any person with a strong interest in true crime. If you really want to get wrapped up in the excitement of this case, this is a very good place to start.

Graysmith does a great job of fleshing out prime Zodiac suspect Arthur Leigh Allen. Allen is just too bizarre and complicated to be a fictional character. He's big and scary, athletic and powerfully-strong. Though sometimes prone to outbursts or physical acts toward others (he was known to throw acquaintances to the ground, knee to the chest before they knew what happened) he often appeared gentle and well-mannered. He had an odd assortment of friends and acquaintances and many unusual interests and hobbies. After both his parents died, he still chose to live in a creepy basement rather than the main floor of the house he inherited.

Though extremely intelligent and talented, Allen never seemed to reach his potential and ultimately ended up working in menial jobs. A diabetic who refused to alter his lifestyle (he was fond of Coors Beer), he later developed serious complications which caused him to lose his mobility and his eyesight.

But even in the earlier stages of his disease, Allen would have experienced diminished mobility, vision loss and coordination which could explain Zodiac's sudden disappearance from the scene. His extremely unpleasant experience being locked up at Atascadero would also explain his refusal to ever reveal his identity as Zodiac. He would not want to risk prison, especially with his ill health. He would deny that he was Zodiac up until his death at 58 from diabetes-related heart disease.

I thoroughly disagree with those here who say this book is poorly-written. And I strongly take issue with the idea that Graysmith's theory that Allen is Zodiac has now been "proven" wrong by DNA evidence.

No one, not even the SFPD, has ever come forward with evidence "proving" anything. The questionable "DNA fingerprint" said to be developed by SFPD DNA lab personnel in 2002 (6 years after their earlier, inconclusive testing) does not exonerate Arthur Leigh Allen. And, other than this SFPD analysis, there is no "other evidence" that would allow this case to reach a conclusion. The careful wording, "seems to clear Zodiac suspect" and "may" are used in press reports. Nothing definite there. Arthur Leigh Allen remains a viable suspect.

SFPD's story for publication is that "genetic traces" were found due to "powerful new DNA technology" and that "trace amounts of saliva" were found under a stamp. I would feel a lot better about this information if someone without a vested interest in the outcome of this thing, (in other words, not SFPD) had done the testing and had done it prior to SFPD's handling of the evidence. Anyone who has worked in law enforcement as I have for years (having come from generations of law enforcement) is aware of the enormous egos many cops have, especially when involved in a high profile case like this. From what I have seen over the years, I would not be at all surprised if lab personnel were persuaded to make "findings," or to overstate the significance of actual findings, that would result in this case pointing in a direction more favorable to SFPD, making them the solvers and discrediting someone they clearly saw as a busybody nobody paperboy horning in on their territory.

True DNA testing is an extraordinary crime-solving tool, but the human factor always has to be considered. There is no longer a pressing need to determine who Zodiac is or was, as he's not actively killing. This is now mostly about the public's curiosity, but also a battle of the egos. Sad to say, many people, cops included, don't play fair. Many SF cops supported Graysmith's work, but others, and most likely SF upper echelon law enforcement, didn't care for this situation at all for P.R. reasons.

As for people who feel Graysmith was unqualified, I say this: you have to be rather specially-talented to work as a political cartoonist for a paper like the Chronicle. It requires artistic ability, political savvy and, yes, an intelligence that may qualify him to actually be smart enough to figure a few things out. Homicide detectives, on the other hand, are rarely master detectives. A promotion to Homicide is a sought-after political perk mostly reserved for those well-connected in law enforcement. It is not awarded to the best and brightest. Homicide cops are usually cops of ordinary ability with some political clout. From the time I was a kid, I have heard over and over, "He got promoted to detective and he's on his way down to headquarters to pick up a bag of brains."

I'm not saying cops are worse than anyone else. I'm just saying they're ordinary people, and ordinary people cheat, manipulate and alter the truth all the time to further a conclusion they're more happy with.

Arthur Leigh Allen still looks good for these crimes, and until someone other than SFPD comes up with something provable and not subject to dispute, I will continue to consider this fascinating, incredibly-complicated, highly-intelligent man to be the prime suspect in the Zodiac murders. I would strongly encourage people who want to read this book to just do it and ignore the negative criticisms here. Like another writer here, I am really wondering if those who criticized the book actually read it. I would also recommend the movie, though it doesn't go into detail about Allen, it is well-done and well worth the six bucks.

I am amazed at the hostility against this book demonstrated by several reviewers. I found Graysmith's case against Leigh Allen to be persuasive. I bought this one right after seeing the new "Zodiac" film, which I also liked. With that background, or a background from having read Graysmith's "Zodiac" book from many years ago, "Unmasked" is a worthy read. I would not advise anyone without familiarity of the case to pick this up first, however. It is a complicated story that stretches from 1966 to the 1990's and beyond, and has a cast of scores of cops and suspects and victims and their family members. If you liked the movie, you probably don't need to read "Zodiac." Try "Unmasked" instead. How some readers can think that Arthur Leigh Allen is NOT the most likely killer is beyond me, but mysteries and conspiracies attract us precisely because we all think we can do better than the cops and reporters in coming up with a solution.

_Zodiac Unmasked_ would have been twice the book at half the length. Graysmith could have eliminated repetition, told the story in fewer chapters (the breaks seem arbitrary, and there are too many of them), eliminated supererogatory data about copycat crimes, and finally developed a few insufficiently explored topics: why did murdering lose its allure for Allen? What was the psychological nexus between the Zodiac's fixations on cryptography and science and killing?

Perhaps this is to ask for a profundity beyond the author's capabilities. Graysmith exhibits no sense of irony or moral outrage--striking deficiencies in a such a book as this.

In his defense and at his own level, however, he does answer some objections other reviewers have raised about apparently conflicting DNA evidence and varying witness identifications. Unlike Patricia Cornwall's explanation of the Jack the Ripper case, Graysmith's solution seems plausible. If the prose is flaccid, at least it is not sensationalized. There should be less of it, though.

I enjoyed both Graysmith/Zodiac books, but ZODIAC UNMASKED was 100 PAGES TOO LONG. Plus much of the info was repeated 2-4 times. I was almost expecting a test at the end!

Didn't think this was that bad a book. Admittedly, not as well written as "Zodiac", as it does tend to meander back and forth and there were some typos/grammatical errors, etc.

I always had the impression from reading the first "Zodiac" that there was something personal (Allen or whoever did it) with one of the attacks, and that the others were done to make it seem that there was a serial killer on the loose.

Darlene Ferrin, the second of the string of victims, seems the most likely candidate for the "real" target of the killer. As those who read either book know, Darlene, a married woman, was out "chatting" with a friend, Mike Mageau, in a car at an isolated location - a parking lot of a country club or golf club.

Witnesses at the Ferrin's house (she had vistors and babysitters over, as a Fourth of July party had been planned) say that a car had pulled up at the Ferrins' house and the car's occupant appeared to be stalking Darlene. We're led to surmise that the killer followed Darlene and Mike Mageau to the location where they were shot.

Years later, Mageau identifed Allen (from a photograph) as the man who approached the two in the car that night.

"Zodiac Unmasked" by Robert Graysmith.

In the late 1960's in California a killer calling himself "The Zodiac" began killing and then contacting local news papers and police departments with information linking himself to the crime scene. Robert Graysmith a political cartoonist at one of the papers that received Zodiac letters became obsessed with the case and began gathering all the available information from various police files, witnesses and any other available sources in hopes of discovering who the Zodiac was. "The Zodiac Unmasked" details the case (His and the Police) and the information he gathered and presents what appears to be a fairly strong circumstantial case against one of the leading suspects.

The Good: The whole story of the Zodiac is pretty interesting and this book gives what is supposed to be one of the most detailed accounts of what actually happened and gives the latest information all the way up to December of 2000. The middle of the book has pictures of the suspect, copies of the letters and ciphers and pictures of some of the crime scenes and the investigators involved which was interesting. The overall telling of the story was good.

The Bad: My main gripe is that too much time was spent on The Zodiac copy cats. Long sections were devoted to these when a very quick mention with "Just the facts" would have been sufficient. There was also a little bit of repetition in stating theories and peoples estimation of the Zodiac's mental state.

Overall: If you are interested in this type of stuff you would probably enjoy this book. It is worth picking up and giving a read.

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.

I first read Robert Graysmith's ZODIAC eight years ago. It was a fascinating and chilling story, certainly one of the most gripping true crime books I had ever read. It ended with Graysmith talking about the prime suspect in the case,whom he named under a pseudonym and what he was doing in the present (circa 1986). When I saw several years ago he had written a sequel, I bought it immediately and read it. I was hoping that Graysmith had picked up where he left off, with this prime suspect, and update and supplement the information already given in the first book.
Graysmith didn't disappoint!
ZODIAC UNMASKED is a fascinating, insightful, thoroughly researched book. I am therefore frankly at a loss to understand most of these negative reviews. Did they read the same book?
One complaint I've seen several times is that, "He didn't describe the killings fully! I didn't know who some of the victims or police were! I was confused!" Note to these people: It was Graysmith's SECOND book on Zodiac. It only says it on the front cover. If you see he's aleady written a book, and this new book tells you in the title the killer is revealed, doesn't common sense tell you to read the previous book first? I'm personally glad that he didn't rehash every single thing from the first book here, I'd rather the space was used for NEW information, the way it was.
Another complaint is that in some parts the book is redundant. I would tend to agree, but the only facts the author repeated were ones essential to the case. It is a long book, and full of quite a bit of information. Essentially what he is doing is reminding you along the way. He makes a point and then draws several previous points together as a cohesive whole, like putting a jigsaw puzzle together. He is putting things in context. Judging by some of these reviews, it didn't seem to work. If Graysmith is guilty of anything, it is over estimating the intellect of some of his readers.
Because of the surplus of info Graysmith provides, the book does need more than one reading for the reader to completely assimilate everything, such as names, dates, relationships certain people had with each other. (Especially when you combine it with the info from the previous book).
One criticism I would agree with is the chapters on the copycat killers. While they were mildly interesting, they probably could have been left out.
A final word on DNA: it is not half as definitive as most people seem to think it is. While the test results on Allen's DNA certainly don't prove he was the killer, neither do they completely rule him out either.
BOTTOM LINE: This is a must read for any true crime buff, or indeed anyone interested in a good mystery. The facts in this case, some of which are from a legal point of view only circumstantial, will still have you shouting to yourself, "I can't believe they never nailed him!" Graysmith's two books, as well as the book "This is the Zodiac Speaking" (which deals with all the written Zodiac material from a psychological standpoint) are the definitive works on Zodiac today.

Robert Graysmith was a political reporter in the late '60s when the Zodiac killer terrorized the San Francisco Bay area. For those who aren't aware, Zodiac killed 5 people that they know of (and perhaps more) and wrote threatening letters to the police, local newspapers, and prominent citizens. He threatened to shoot out the tires of a schoolbus, and then shoot the children as they ran out the door, hinted about a "death machine" he had in his basement, and even sent "recipes" for how to concoct bombs to substantiate his claim that he could kill a lot of people. After a period 1969-71, he quit acknowledging who he had killed, and only occasionally taunted the police with new letters. He was never caught.

Zodiac has been the subject of many films and books. The bad guy in the movie Dirty Harry ("Scorpio") was loosely based on him. He engendered such curiosity not just because he killed some people and threatened to kill more. It was also the letters that he wrote, filled with strange codes and bizarre demands. The writing itself was bizarre, a weird printing with strange symbols in it and bizarre mispellings of words. He demanded that everyone wear Zodiac buttons, and when no one complied, threatened to torture his slaves (those people he had killed) in the afterlife. He was altogether a strange guy.

Graysmith, a political cartoonist in San Francisco, became obsessed with the Zodiac killings. He spent years gathering evidence, and checking suspects, and became as much of an expert as some of the police detectives on the case. In the early '80s he wrote a book called Zodiac, chronicling the story of the killings and the information that the police had gathered. There was a principle suspect, who the author identified by a pseudonym for various reasons. This suspect fit all of the criteria for the killer, and didn't have a convincing alibi for any of the killings. However, the police couldn't elicit a confession, and didn't have any hard physical evidence. Also, by the time they became convinced, the suspect was old, legally blind, and past his killing days, so they weren't that enthusiastic about pursuing him.

The present book follows this man (his name was Arthur Leigh Allen) throughout his life, and contends that he was the Zodiac killer. There is a lengthy discussion of his motivation and mindset, including the various movies, radio shows and books that influenced him to think the way he did.

The problem is in the way the book is structured. Since Graysmith already wrote another book on Zodiac, he feels apparently that he shouldn't go over new ground, and so he assumes you remember all the details of the killings that he chronicled in his previous book. I would recommend reading Zodiac before this book, even if you already read it. I read it about a decade ago, and I have a good memory, but I was lost at times in this book, and found it rather tedious going over details which were only partially enumerated, trying to figure out what his point was.

That being said, there is a lot of information here. It's difficult to imagine someone else turning out to be the Zodiac killer, though I suppose it's possible. Hey, I noticed someone's solved the Black Dahlia thing again! Someone will no doubt re-solve the Zodiac killing someday, but in the meanwhile, this book and Zodiac itself are the best books on the subject.