zodiac unmasked question
has anyone broken down either of graysmith's books into fact/fiction? he seems to cross the line between a fictional narrative (the heavy use of direct quotes and descriptions of events to which he wasn't present) and a historical account (interviews, documents, etc) and i don't even know where to begin in breaking down the parts where he seems to try to be historically accurate.
for example - he obviously threw everything at ala, so i just tend to ignore most of the circumstantial evidence regarding his main suspect, however is it generally accepted that his direct quotes from investigators are legit or did he take poetic license even with the stuff between the quotation marks?
for example - he obviously threw everything at ala, so i just tend to ignore most of the circumstantial evidence regarding his main suspect, however is it generally accepted that his direct quotes from investigators are legit or did he take poetic license even with the stuff between the quotation marks?
