Funnily enough I was just watching a Youtube video about this the other day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1B8ywHI97A
I’ve only really gotten into Zodiac over the past year, so not as seasoned as many of you and even I was surprised he got the LB part about Cecilia so wrong.
Funnily enough I was just watching a Youtube video about this the other day.
About what? That video doesn’t seem to be about Hewitt’s book. I didn’t watch it… Or were you just saying that you were watching a video about Zodiac in general? I don’t see the relevance in mentioning it, I guess.
Funnily enough I was just watching a Youtube video about this the other day.
About what? That video doesn’t seem to be about Hewitt’s book. I didn’t watch it… Or were you just saying that you were watching a video about Zodiac in general? I don’t see the relevance in mentioning it, I guess.
The video covers his first book in a series of 3 called Zodiac:Hunted, in which he covers the murders. Hewitt states why he decided to write three books as opposed to writing a single book with a specific POI.
Ok, cool. Thanks.
I did see that there were going to be three parts, but I forgot about that. That doesn’t seem like a good idea to me either, why do you need three books worth of material? There isn’t that much about the case, unless you are going to fill in a bunch of made up nonsense like Steve Hodel, and even he stuck to just two books. Even Graysmith for that matter only filled one and a half books with baloney.
"Over 2k suspects" comes from Toschi interviews from the 1970s and only applies to SFPD.
I’m 62% into the book and enjoying it thus far. I’m not a walking Zodiac encyclopedia, but I did spot a couple of minor flubs:
– Hewitt says Toschi became a security guard after retiring from SFPD, while most sources state that he became the Director of Security for St. Luke’s Hospital. Yeah, Toschi was disgraced, but he didn’t need to take grunt jobs.
– At one point, he refers to TALES OF THE CITY as a comic strip, but later (correctly) refers to it as serialized fiction. As though he wrote the former before he had done the research, then forgot to fix it.
His reporting is balanced, for the most part; eg, he digs into the Fouke controversy from all angles, and clarifies the "stab me first" nonsense, but simply states as fact that Zodiac said "Deer Lodge." Again, I’m only halfway through the book.
I admit I’m tempted to cut Hewitt some slack, as the world desperately needs a Zodiac book that ISN’T hopelessly dated or an out-and-out schlockfest.
"His reporting is balanced, for the most part; eg, he digs into the Fouke controversy from all angles, and clarifies the "stab me first" nonsense"
This is here in the police report http://www.zodiackiller.com/LBReport7.html
"His reporting is balanced, for the most part; eg, he digs into the Fouke controversy from all angles, and clarifies the "stab me first" nonsense"
This is here in the police report http://www.zodiackiller.com/LBReport7.html
Which goes to show White didn’t get his info correct or whatever…..since Bryan says that didn’t happen. In both reports, Bryan never mentions this. Quite the contrary..it basically happened quickly and, it would seem, unexpected.
So, did White completely make it up? Misunderstand? Did Bryan say this in his deliriousness? What else could White have gotten wrong?? 
“…they may be dealing with one or more ersatz Zodiacs–other psychotics eager to get into the act, or perhaps even other murderers eager to lay their crimes at the real Zodiac’s doorstep.“ L.A. Times, 1969
Ok, cool. Thanks.
I did see that there were going to be three parts, but I forgot about that. That doesn’t seem like a good idea to me either, why do you need three books worth of material? There isn’t that much about the case, unless you are going to fill in a bunch of made up nonsense like Steve Hodel, and even he stuck to just two books. Even Graysmith for that matter only filled one and a half books with baloney.
The three books break down like this-
Book One, HUNTED: The Zodiac Murders tells the amazing true story of a serial killer on the loose.
Book Two, PROFILED, The Zodiac Examined (2017) examines the evidence and offers a careful, detailed profile of the killer based on the case facts.
Book Three, EXPOSED: The Zodiac Revealed (2018) narrows down the lengthy list of suspects, and offers startling conclusions.
yeah, that’s what I said, mostly bogus.
His first book is getting praised for being mostly accurate. Good for the guy to write a full length wikipedia article. Anyone could do that. Still, if that’s all he did, that’s fine. It’s nice to have a reference book in print and I prefer it to google.
Then it gets murky. Book two is his profile. Is he a professional Profiler? Why should we care about his profile more than any of the other professionals that have given theirs?
Book 3 is where he "narrows down the suspects". What is there to narrow down? That should have been in his first book. It was in Graysmith. So that just sounds to me like he has his own suspect and theory and for some reason wasted everyone’s time with two books before trotting it out.
