Zodiackillersite.com

glurk wrote:

duckking2001 wrote:I also wonder if it wasn't all Graysmith's choice to push ALA so heavily. For a book about a cold case I imagine a publisher is going to want a new angle...aka. a new suspect. Almost every Zodiac book has been about pushing a suspect. I don't think it's just because that is what the author really believed in. Also it's going to be a big let down to have it turn out not to be the guy in the end. No one wants to hear that. That's what many people were unhappy about with the ending in Fincher's Zodiac.

I've spoken to Mike Butterfield from time to time, and like him or hate him, he has often said that to get a book published, you HAVE TO name a suspect. No one wants to read facts, or details, etc... Readers WANT a suspect. Sorry state of affairs, IMO.

-glurk

Glurk, If you talk to Mike Butterfield, he might be interested in what this JTR author has to say about self publishing. It might be a much better deal for him. Just like JTR all the worst Zodiac books in resent years came from major publishers.

Starting at 66:20 in:
http://podbay.fm/show/541481026/e/14131 ... utostart=1

Tahoe27 wrote:Not to take a stab at Mike B., but I might take the word of an actual author. It's sort of like people who give financial advise when they themselves struggle to pay their bills.

Besides, Graysmith threw out a few suspects--none of which were even named. So...?

The thing is, for me, Allen wasn't pushed so much in Zodiac. There were others in that book that caught my fancy a bit more. In ZU Allen was shoved down our throats to the point I gagged on several occasions.

You know that was a stab, Tahoe. It's no difference to me what anyone thinks about anyone else, but it's kind of BS to be passive aggressive and then pretend that it's otherwise.

If Horan, for instance, told me that he had troubles with a publisher, I would believe him on that. Anyone who has written about the case and not had a major publishing deal would be someone to listen to on that, no matter how you feel about their theory or about them as a person.

I disagree with you on Zodiac, though. It only seems like Graysmith is not pushing Allen because he doesn't mentioned him until the end of the book, and makes believe that it was because he had only just heard of him then, when he was subtly framing all the circumstances to point to Allen the whole time.

That's what all that business with the mysterious stranger and the painting party, Darlene's friend "Lee" were all about. He knows and even says as much that when he asked about it Grant was IDed, but then he drops him like a hot potato and puts it all on Allen.

He even thinks that Allen committed the SRHM, at least he includes them in his timeline for Allen. I have no doubt if it wasn't for Allen, he wouldn't be trying to connect those to Zodiac.

Also, and not until z unmasked, does he try to connect Allen to Manalli in Santa Rosa. Personally, I think that Graysmith had some info or a tip, etc that Manalli was suspected in the z case by somebody, after all, why would he mention that Manalli had been in Riverside( which many of use researched and can't verify)?
Seems Graysmith was trying to hitch his wagon to Manalli for some reason.

I think Graysmith legitimately had interest in Marshall, Grant, and ALA, but wound up settling on Allen

I think his interest in other suspects was to prescribe to the team Zodiac theory, which is to say "all this stuff doesn't fit my guy because it was another guy, but it's also still my guy."

morf13 wrote:Also, and not until z unmasked, does he try to connect Allen to Manalli in Santa Rosa. Personally, I think that Graysmith had some info or a tip, etc that Manalli was suspected in the z case by somebody, after all, why would he mention that Manalli had been in Riverside( which many of use researched and can't verify)?
Seems Graysmith was trying to hitch his wagon to Manalli for some reason.

I think Graysmith legitimately had interest in Marshall, Grant, and ALA, but wound up settling on Allen

I think that Graysmith was trying like crazy to link other murders to Zodiac and by including Manalli in the mix with a connection to ALA he could pick up another 6-8 murders.

duckking2001 wrote:

Tahoe27 wrote:Not to take a stab at Mike B., but I might take the word of an actual author. It's sort of like people who give financial advise when they themselves struggle to pay their bills.

Besides, Graysmith threw out a few suspects--none of which were even named. So...?

The thing is, for me, Allen wasn't pushed so much in Zodiac. There were others in that book that caught my fancy a bit more. In ZU Allen was shoved down our throats to the point I gagged on several occasions.

You know that was a stab, Tahoe. It's no difference to me what anyone thinks about anyone else, but it's kind of BS to be passive aggressive and then pretend that it's otherwise.

I don't have a beef with MikeB -- I was just sort of stating it like it is. He is not an author--BUT, I did read Glurk's post wrong as he was suggesting Mike look at the other guys self-publishing info. For that, I apologize.

duckking2001 wrote:I think his interest in other suspects was to prescribe to the team Zodiac theory, which is to say "all this stuff doesn't fit my guy because it was another guy, but it's also still my guy."

That's how I read it too. He left himself some openings. ALA being ruled out on prints and writing was always a major problem, hence the projector theory and the focus on him being ambidextrous - but also the inclusion of other suspects. To me the latter doesn't really smack of RG genuinely/objectively looking at these people as possible suspects, but rather of him hinting at the possibility of ALA having worked with someone in a Team Z setting.

Tahoe27 wrote:I don't have a beef with MikeB -- I was just sort of stating it like it is. He is not an author--BUT, I did read Glurk's post wrong as he was suggesting Mike look at the other guys self-publishing info. For that, I apologize.

I may have misread it too, but I think Butterfield's point is that to be an author, as you say, you need to push a suspect. And he's very critical of that, i.e. he doesn't care for the whole POI "culture" in the Z context. Publishing a fact based book about the case, without pushing your uncle as the killer, isn't sexy enough.

There are hardly any published Z authors out there whose opinion I value much at all, so I certainly wouldn't hold it against Butterfield that he isn't among them.

Did This is the Zodiac Speaking push a suspect? I don't think so, but can't remember. And I know it's not to say one CAN'T publish a book without a suspect...it just might be easier. I look forward to the day pushing a suspect (a potentially innocent man) is frowned upon.

I do see your point (duckking) about hinting at Allen throughout the book. This is true. The ending is sort of his icing on the cake. I never thought Allen was Zodiac--just my take. Back when the book came out, I didn't think twice about forming a different opinion than the author. I simply thought he was mistaken as we all have a different perspective. Now, I do see the faults, but still think it's a decent book.

Ok...getting posts mixed up. Paul_A suggested the JTR author...glurk mentioned MikeB's take on suspects. My mix-up, my bad. Either way, my statement stands. MikeB. is not an author and like Norse, I wouldn't hold it against him if he doesn't publish a book--in fact, I think I'd respect him more. Although I do believe if one writes a book well enough, one can still intrigue an audience...it's just at this point, it's been done almost to the detriment of this case.

Tahoe27 wrote:Did This is the Zodiac Speaking push a suspect? I don't think so, but can't remember.

No, I don't think so. Kelleher may have had someone in mind - he did talk about about having a POI of sorts later on. But the book didn't push anyone in particular.

Kelleher is just about the only one I would give a thumbs up, by the way. I don't agree with all his reasoning but he's a serious guy, unlike most others who have published books on the subject. Might mention Oswell too: I don't agree with him either, but he isn't a crackpot or a shameless opportunist, and he presents his case in a worthy manner, IMO.