I am watching the special feature on the blu-ray where they interview Mike Mageau.

He says something, in amongst his rambling that really stood out to me. When talking about how he felt about her dying he said he felt guilty because "I was there to protect her".

Protect her from who, Mike?

I’ve been reading up on the Texarkana Phantom murders. The first victims, who lived, gave slightly conflicting accounts of what happened and weren’t able to agree on a description of their attacker. As a result, throughout the course of the original investigation, the police continually pressed the female victim Mary Jeanne Larey, who was beaten, humiliated, and raped with a gun barrel, to name the guy who did it to her, the logic being that since her male companion didn’t describe a mask and she did, that she must have known the assailant and was therefore protecting him.

Guess how many leads that avenue of inquiry produced?

Point being, Mike Mageau was just a kid when he was shot in the face and watched the girl who was surely the love of his young life die literally in front of him. All I see in that interview is a sad, damaged man and his fragmented psyche struggling to make sense of a trauma that most of us can’t comprehend while wracked with intense survivor’s guilt that he was unable to protect his friend Dee from something neither of them could have possibly seen coming. The poor guy deserves our empathy, not more suspicion. These insinuations have produced literally nothing ever since they were first bandied about decades ago (well after the fact, I might add) and only serve to make the community of sleuths who keep this case alive look like a bunch of insensitive, conspiratorial nuts who don’t give a damn about the human cost of these crimes which, IMHO, should always remain at the forefront of what we do.

Just my two cents.

My apologies if I came across as a conspiratorial nut.

I’m actually in my final year of University studies in Criminology and Criminal Psychology, and as such I am taught to constantly question evidence and testimony, particularly ones that keep changing.

If it makes you feel any better, I also feel the same way about Mr Cheney.

A constantly changing story with different facts sprinkled into it, is far from harassing someone who has clearly got a subconscious barrier being put up to block the memory of an attacker’s face.

I am also not suspicious of Mike, more I feel that he has answers locked inside his memory that he cannot make sense of.

Cool Fincher read.

The film doesn’t necessary endorse the Allen-as-Zodiac stance which a lot of people (myself included) thought was the case. It’s a great film.

"Just because you can’t prove it doesn’t mean it’s not true."

I disagree with that, moreso after hearing what Fincher had to say on it. We were really supposed to believe that a film telling blatant lies presented as fact from it’s protagonist, and Toschi agreeing with him, was only meant to be Graysmith being humored and we as the audience were supposed to interpret it that way? If that is truly the case, he has failed as a director then.

I just have a hard time really believing that Fincher is skeptical about Allen being guilty when he made a film based on a screenplay that is even more firm about Allen’s guilt than the real Graysmith, and filled it with BS that confirms that, even during many scenes where it is presented objectively and not just from film Graysmith’s perspective. So saying "Graymsith merely feels that Allen is guilty, but the movie itself doesn’t show that to be true." is a cop out.

and I agree that qoute is totally asinine, but I do not believe that it was intended to be conveyed ironically.

The Guy that wrote the screenplay, was interviewed in the bonus DVD, and stated that they don’t endorse Allen as being or not being Z, but rather, presenting a movie based on the book. I think they accomplish that pretty well.

Films need endings and closure. The Z case is far from over. In the film it’s the Graysmith character freeing himself from the mystery that gives him closure. The film was really more about Graysmith and obsession than Zodiac.

So, it makes for a good ending and great film, but fails when it comes to providing a solid ending to the case.

Protect her from who, Mike?

Different times. A guy was supposed to protect a girl, generally speaking. I think that’s what he means.

Plus, he’s voicing a form of survivor’s guilt which is not uncommon – but pretty much impossible to fully understand unless one has experienced it.

The Guy that wrote the screenplay, was interviewed in the bonus DVD, and stated that they don’t endorse Allen as being or not being Z, but rather, presenting a movie based on the book. I think they accomplish that pretty well.

Deja vu. Didn’t I post that guys crazy screenplay on here? I guess it must’ve been in some other thread about this movie. If you had read it you’d see that they changed and toned down a lot from the screenplay for what was in the actual movie.

In the original ending Graysmith goes on even more about how Allen is guilty and he delivers the speech to some mythical Zodiac task force at the DOJ who basically say "thank you for solving the case", instead of just to Dave Toschi by himself in a coffee shop like in the movie.

Ducking, thanks I missed that post. Sounds like an egotistical ending for Graysmith. I liked the movie ending as-is

When Toschi first approaches the cab in the movie he looks as Stine and asks Pete, "Who rolled him?" What does he mean by this? Does he mean who rolled him over or is he using thee slang term "rolled," as in someone who got rolled or got robbed? I’ve never understood this. The response is "the stewards" meaning the ambulance workers. So the obvious answer is that he’s referring to who rolled Stine over. However Vince Repetto told me that in those days ambulance workers would "roll" a victim and take his money out of his pockets because he reasoned that he didn’t need it anymore. That’s why I don’t know what Toschi is talking about.