[by Justin Levine]
While I’d love for the case to finally be solved, I would feel a tinge of regret in one sense if it genuinely turns out to be this new suspect. The regret would be this: I still think that Zodiac was easily the best fim of 2007 (lack of Academy Award nominations notwithstanding). It was based on Robert Graysmith’s book which argued that Arthur Lee Allen was most likely the real killer. If these new allegations pan out, it would effectively destroy Graysmith’s theory. While Zodiac the film would remain a great police procedural thriller, it would obviously be hard to look at the film again without the constant nagging thought that it too is wrong and ignores key suspects in the case. [Like the case itself, the film ends on an inconclusive note - but it still reflects Graysmith's own biases and theories regarding the investigation.]
But obviously I’m not about to allow my love for a film cloud objective judgments over the facts of a case. I just follow the evidence whereevr it may lead, and trust that professional investigators will do the same.
More on comparing Zodiac film and facts here.
Meanwhile, the L.A. Weekly this week has a fascinating article on one of the most prolific serial killers in recent years who has remained unidenitified and has recently begun operating again in Southern California.
- Justin Levine