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

I would like to comment on the content of this book, but I have read only 25 pages and I have fallen asleep four times. This book is very poorly written. It is confusing and poorly organized. It starts in the middle of the story and then meanders around endlessly. I sure would like my money back.

Graysmith lays this out more or less chronologically as Zodiac events happened and in conjunction with the life of the "favorite suspect" (Arthur Leigh Allen - hereafter referred to as "A.L.A."). There are many instances where there is repetition on the re-telling of events, experiences of witnesses, police, evidence/discovery, etc. because of the introduction of various elements and people that Graysmith tracked down in order to converge the story of the Zodiac in as much historical accuracy as possible. I think he accomplished that in this volume. I chose this latest book to study the case because it had the most up-to-date information and eyewitness testimony, adding to initial information that Graysmith pulled together in the first book, "Zodiac."

What Graysmith accomplished in this book is more or less to lay out the argument, based on the facts and eyewitness testimony, that the number one suspect, A.L.A., was indeed the Zodiac killer. Graysmith has been criticized for his focus on too much circumstancial evidence which many people feel does not prove guilt of the prime suspect. However, one must remember that the Zodiac (A.L.A.)was not your ordinary serial killer - he used different weapons, changed M.O. and several of his crytograms have never been solved. He bragged in letters that he used techniques which would conceal his fingerprints; he studied handwriting analysis, studied techniques for beating lie detector tests, knew that even in the 1960's (before DNA testing) when his crimes began, that saliva tests could detect blood type; etc. The "smoking gun" came too little, too late. A positive I.D. of A.L.A. as the Zodiac, by surviving attack victim, Mike Mageau. Why it took the Police until 20 years later to track down and show Mageau a lineup of suspects is baffling and bears witness to troubling aspects of the case, not the least of which was lack of coordination and sharing of information among jurisdictions involved in the case, all of which Graysmith covers in the text.

Many people say that Zodiac was the Jack the Ripper of the 20th Century. I believe that the case has been solved. Except that A.L.A. got the last laugh when he rudely dropped dead of a heart attack in 1992 just when the positive ID and mounting circumstantial evidence was converging against him. By that late date, he had become deathly ill, suffering from debilitating disease and thus leaving judgement of him locked forever in a court of public opinion. So maybe he wasn't so smart afterall. Just lucky.

When I was reading the material, I found myself asking questions like, "if A.L.A. isn't the Zodiac killer, and just a retired (pedophile) schoolteacher, what was he doing with pipe bombs in his basement? even being a hunting enthusiast, what would he need 15 guns for? semi-automatics? a silencer? This is a man who was fired from a school job for carrying weapons on the front seat of his car to school/to work. Out of all the 2,500 suspects in the case, A.L.A. was the only one that used a bow and arrow. The only one that wore Wing Walker boots. These questions are just a few among hundreds that can't be ignored. But most certainly, my primary question was not "was A.L.A. the Zodiac, but WHY it took so long for authorities to figure it out. Hubris certainly played a key role in the big picture.

Readers who are familiar with Sociopathic personality disorder will recognize this in A.L.A.'s personality profile as they read through the book and the case. A.L.A. was diagnosed with Multiple Personality Disorder, which would explain his M.O. of being "all over the map", from use of weapons to choice of victims, crime scene and sexual deviation. A.L.A. seemed to be a complex and very disturbed individual. If not him, then who? By his own admission, he incriminated himself on more than one occasion, even leaving clues which were often lost on the authorities. Graysmith deserves the public's respect for his dedication and investigative prowess in putting the pieces together. Read the book and decide for yourself.

.
Graysmith wrote THE book, "Zodiac," on this serial killer. That one is well worth reading.

This sequel? Not so much.

The short version of this day by day, almost 500 pages "unmasking" is his preferred suspect had handwriting and fingerprints which didn't match the Zodiac's and passed a lie detector. The district attorney refused to prosecute the guy. All that can be explained and Graysmith tries--but it's a hard road.

The chronology bounces around. We're talking about 1973, then suddenly the date changes to 1963 with no segue. It's more like a scrapbook, with the author assuming the reader knows the back story.

Read the first book, which also discusses his favorite pick, and kindly ignore this second effort.

by all of the complaining over Graysmith...

for one we do live in a free country and are alllowed our opinion...graysmiths's opinions about Allen are just that. He is not sending anyone to prison. So I don't understand all the negativity here and elsewhere over his thoughts and conclusions. The police have never arrived at a more compelling suspect themsleves either.

the DNA did not prove his innocence...it's abscence of DNA...not proof positive of anyone else. And you don't "prove" a negative.

Do I believe Allen was the Zodiac? I have no idea. But there are far too many nerdy message board self proclaimed 'experts' who did far less work first hand who are tearing down Graysmith's own books.

You don't HAVE TO believe everything...but it's still a free country folks.

looking forward to reading the "This is the Zodiac Speaking" book as well.

I am a connssiuer of this type of book;..and this book just does not engage me..doesn't scare me, and doesn't do a thing for me.

I find myself reading back and forth tryng to first-- find who the hell Allen is in the pictures, when the book is talking about a "Starr"! I mean.. maybe this isn't a big deal, but the continuity of the book depends on us knowing who the heck this person is-- especially if we-- like everyone else-- flips to the pics just as we're getting started on the read.

I found that very confusing. Do I have to read the first book to "get" all of this?

I find this a very boring read. It rambles, and the syntax is terrible! Not a good flow... I fall asleep every time I pick it up..this is not good for a crime story!

I want to be excited.. and thanks to all who recommended the other zodiac books..because I find nothing scarier in this story than the drawing of zodiac with the hood.. that's about as scary as Graysmith gets. He's a good sketch artist.

I read the original Zodiac book shortly after its release and loved it. I have been fascinated with the case ever sense. It was well written and keeps the reader interested from start to finish. However, the Zodiac Unmasked is different. The author jumps back and forth in time and repeats information so many times it is nearly impossible to correctly follow what is happening. Though the book has some interesting information not included or available for the original book, it is a chore working through the book to get it. I was very dissappointed with this book after enjoying the first and the movie so much. Unless you are a die hard slueth that cannot get enough of this case, I would avoid this one and stick to the first.

If you've always been curious or even haunted by not knowing who the Zodiac killer of the late 60's and early 70's in the Bay Area was, then you have to read this book. No one else but Robert Graysmith has or could have compiled such a detailed account of who the prime suspect was and still is. His name is...you've got to read the book.

Interesting book to read. But like so many other "I know who the Zodiac is" books, it's full of speculation, circumstantial evidence and even conjecture at times. Regardless, still a very interesting book. Highly recommended for police officers so they can see what NOT to do during any investigation but especially homicides.

Good book to read I would recommend it

A hard very detailed read. Well researched, but a little hard to follow at times.