This "professor" is quite simply a dolt! Unless they are attempting to assault the killers ego as a single individual responsible AND force him into the light to defend his "life's work" It's embarrassing that this was made, I condemn Nock for following this as his subject but overall I understand why he chose to do so - HOWEVER again I must state thay reviewing a documentary is a particularly unique challenge - do you review the subject of the film or do you review the merits of the film making? Me personally, I try not to judge the documentary on the nature of the subject, whether it be an individual human, a group of humans, nature or simply an event that's transpired - that being said, based solely on the technical merits (and because this proves Bart Simpson grew up to be a ner'do'well) I have to, begrudgingly give it a 6.
12 Reviews
Crabtree Interview Was Awesome
Astaroth2225 July 2023
Warning: Spoilers
For anyone who has done at least some research into Zodiac, this is worth a watch. If not for anything else, the Crabtree interview will not disappoint. Add in Shepard's interview and I don't know how anyone can say this was below average.
While I do not agree Horan is correct in his theory (there are obvious holes), his idea is not unique and was worth exploring. Fact is, a theory among reporters in the 3X murders was that one of their own was writing the letters. In the Hall Mills double killings, a reporter posed as the murderer in one instance. J. Edgar Hoover blamed the murder of the Matteson child on a reporter who called the family pretending to be the kidnapper, using the information gained for a story that was published. Reporters also fabricated evidence in both the Lillian hit and the Lindbergh case. In other instances, reporters even posed as cops to gain insight and information for their papers.
Again, the problem here is that Horan's theory does not work. But does this disagreement warrant a kneecap rating? No, it does not.
While I do not agree Horan is correct in his theory (there are obvious holes), his idea is not unique and was worth exploring. Fact is, a theory among reporters in the 3X murders was that one of their own was writing the letters. In the Hall Mills double killings, a reporter posed as the murderer in one instance. J. Edgar Hoover blamed the murder of the Matteson child on a reporter who called the family pretending to be the kidnapper, using the information gained for a story that was published. Reporters also fabricated evidence in both the Lillian hit and the Lindbergh case. In other instances, reporters even posed as cops to gain insight and information for their papers.
Again, the problem here is that Horan's theory does not work. But does this disagreement warrant a kneecap rating? No, it does not.
Should Be Called "How to Sell a Book by Unfounded Insinuation"
chaplaindad12 July 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Here we go again...another ridiculous Zodiac theory TV series that just so happens to be based on an English professor's (not a trained investigator's) self-described "opinion." A close listen to the show reveals an appalling lack of any facts or evidence to back the so-called "theory." Clearly, the Ph. D. behind the theory had access only to information available in the public domain, not to the actual, sequestered police evidence. Indeed, it seems a massive stretch to believe any police department would give him unfettered access to all the evidence in these cases. If you are interested in valid theories regarding the Zodiac Killings, skip this disaster. However, if you find silly conspiracy theories entertaining, especially if you like to laugh at the nonsense, then "Myth of the Zodiac Killer" is for you. 2 stars for entertainment value.
Nonsense
davelittle-8727412 July 2023
This dude's conspiracy theories are weak at best. To say he reaches really far for his nonsensical ideas would be an understatement. What a waste of time. He doesn't come across as reputable or knowledgeable. He comes across as just some dude that decided to come up with whatever nonsense he could to sell a book filled with complete nonsense. I keep using that word because that's exactly what this whole thing is...nonsense. I even tried to get into it and try to enjoy it as a mockumentary and I couldn't even do that. Make your own judgement if you choose to watch. I wish I hadn't wasted the time.
This is a Complete Farce.
jburtonprod-802-75902914 July 2023
There is no investigation going on in this documentary. I've seen just about every Zodiac doc and I'm guessing all the participants in those films think this thing is a farce.
The main problem is the director seems to have done no research, himself. Instead, he features this English professor, Thomas Horan, who is a Zodiac hobbyist. Horan jumps to conclusions and makes nutzo claims like he's the only Zodiac researcher 'who has read all material on the case'. He has no way of knowing that and the claim itself blows his credibility.
At one of the crime scenes, based on the location of a shell casing, he proclaims it proves that the shooter was on the passenger side shooting over the hood of the car. That itself is a huge leap. And from this he 'deduces' there were two killers. This is a ridiculous reach and this guy has NO forensic training, whatsoever.
Horan is not qualified as an investigator and is working backwards from his thesis. That is bad investigative technique and bad science. This is every bit as weak as any of NIck Broomfield's docs on the Biggie and Trupac Murders. If you are going to put out a true crime documentary you have to at least do INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM. There is nothing like that going on, here. It's just some retired professor spinning theories without the rigor to drop test them.
The only interesting segment is the AI evaluation of the handwriting but even that is inconclusive. If you watch this 'documentary' you will know less about the Zodiac than if never watched it at all.
The main problem is the director seems to have done no research, himself. Instead, he features this English professor, Thomas Horan, who is a Zodiac hobbyist. Horan jumps to conclusions and makes nutzo claims like he's the only Zodiac researcher 'who has read all material on the case'. He has no way of knowing that and the claim itself blows his credibility.
At one of the crime scenes, based on the location of a shell casing, he proclaims it proves that the shooter was on the passenger side shooting over the hood of the car. That itself is a huge leap. And from this he 'deduces' there were two killers. This is a ridiculous reach and this guy has NO forensic training, whatsoever.
Horan is not qualified as an investigator and is working backwards from his thesis. That is bad investigative technique and bad science. This is every bit as weak as any of NIck Broomfield's docs on the Biggie and Trupac Murders. If you are going to put out a true crime documentary you have to at least do INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM. There is nothing like that going on, here. It's just some retired professor spinning theories without the rigor to drop test them.
The only interesting segment is the AI evaluation of the handwriting but even that is inconclusive. If you watch this 'documentary' you will know less about the Zodiac than if never watched it at all.
Very well done
HatedFollower2112 July 2023
Even though I may not agree on every point that they're trying to make, it still was done well enough to get my wheels turning. Was it actually all just a ruse? The most prolific cold case in American History, is it all fake? Honestly after watching this documentary, I am now stuck in the middle.
Like everyone else, I'm sure, I didn't even question the facts of the case, thinking it was just 1 guy sending letters claiming the kills. After this documentary, I'm not entirely convinced now.
This doc is incredibly well done. It was intense, the structure was incredible, and I really wanted more episodes. Do yourself a favor if you enjoy true crime, watch this!
Like everyone else, I'm sure, I didn't even question the facts of the case, thinking it was just 1 guy sending letters claiming the kills. After this documentary, I'm not entirely convinced now.
This doc is incredibly well done. It was intense, the structure was incredible, and I really wanted more episodes. Do yourself a favor if you enjoy true crime, watch this!
Peacock is the new TLC
SteverB17 July 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I am a sometime Zodiac hobbyist, and even I noticed some glaring mistakes being made in even presenting the case and how the murders occurred, let alone the ridiculous "theories" being presented by this ENGLISH professor without a background in criminal investigation. I have read many theories of the Zodiac killer and none of them has been as outlandish and at the same time STUPID, as the ones being presented here.
The very worst thing about this was that, as "Professor" Horan tried to shoehorn his ideas into the facts of the various murders and make us believe that there were several murderers, he always, but in one case, tried to blame people who are dead for the crimes. So, in addition to presenting this farce of a documentary, he also tried to sully dead people's reputations as killers or having other things to do with the crimes. A park ranger, Paul Avery, Darlene Ferrin's first husband, who, though still alive and interviewed, may now be a little nuts, but clearly was not the killer. And really? Paul Avery stole a piece of Paul Stine's shirt to keep the letters going to the SF Chronicle so he'd continue to have a story to write about? C'mon, man!
I went into this thinking that I'd like to read this man's book, but after seeing the documentary, I don't have to or want to. True crime people, stay away. Zodiac enthusiasts, stay away. People with working brains, stay away! Absolutely NOT recommended for anyone.
The very worst thing about this was that, as "Professor" Horan tried to shoehorn his ideas into the facts of the various murders and make us believe that there were several murderers, he always, but in one case, tried to blame people who are dead for the crimes. So, in addition to presenting this farce of a documentary, he also tried to sully dead people's reputations as killers or having other things to do with the crimes. A park ranger, Paul Avery, Darlene Ferrin's first husband, who, though still alive and interviewed, may now be a little nuts, but clearly was not the killer. And really? Paul Avery stole a piece of Paul Stine's shirt to keep the letters going to the SF Chronicle so he'd continue to have a story to write about? C'mon, man!
I went into this thinking that I'd like to read this man's book, but after seeing the documentary, I don't have to or want to. True crime people, stay away. Zodiac enthusiasts, stay away. People with working brains, stay away! Absolutely NOT recommended for anyone.
Farce
belladoll-8557920 July 2023
Warning: Spoilers
It's alarming how "documentaries" such as this and "The Most Dangerous Animal of All" have been produced; both lack verifiable, credible evidence in support of their respective hypotheses. Sadly, both pick and choose certain facts to "fit" their arguments in order to "prove" their conclusions.
Here, Horan has the audacity to state that he is the only person who has read the entire Zodiac case file and media clippings, which is, according to Him, reason why his hypothesis and conclusions are correct, even in the absence of substantive proof. Such assertion is not only unprovable and absurd but is totally disrespectful to those actual law enforcement who have worked on this case, like my cousin Dave Toschi, as well as countless others who have reviewed this investigation thoroughly.
Suffice to say, it's disgusting to see another con artist get paid $$ for asserting baseless claims, particularly since he has no law enforcement or forensic background. Yet the doc fails to offer any expert testimonial to support Horan's assertions; rather, instead of relying on logic and facts, it appeals to viewers' emotions by including interviews from people who had no direct involvement in the case.
I hope those who are genuinely interested in the Zodiac will alternatively seek case information from more reputable and authoritative sources, and read the FBI and state police file and come to their own conclusions based on fact, not fiction.
Here, Horan has the audacity to state that he is the only person who has read the entire Zodiac case file and media clippings, which is, according to Him, reason why his hypothesis and conclusions are correct, even in the absence of substantive proof. Such assertion is not only unprovable and absurd but is totally disrespectful to those actual law enforcement who have worked on this case, like my cousin Dave Toschi, as well as countless others who have reviewed this investigation thoroughly.
Suffice to say, it's disgusting to see another con artist get paid $$ for asserting baseless claims, particularly since he has no law enforcement or forensic background. Yet the doc fails to offer any expert testimonial to support Horan's assertions; rather, instead of relying on logic and facts, it appeals to viewers' emotions by including interviews from people who had no direct involvement in the case.
I hope those who are genuinely interested in the Zodiac will alternatively seek case information from more reputable and authoritative sources, and read the FBI and state police file and come to their own conclusions based on fact, not fiction.
the film where logic went to die...
notabluefalcon16 July 2023
Hate to be harsh but... this is pure speculation masquerading as "proof" and "evidence." Documentary fans- this will probably get your blood boiling. I rolled my eyes at the shockingly unscientific "reenactments." I scoffed at the logically unsupported assumptions and the massive leaps to unproven conclusions. I gave them 1 star for presentating a reasonable summary of the zodiac murders. Oh fun fact they glossed over some of the similarities between the murders in order to support the wild claim that there was "no connection between the murders" except for the letters. Okay. There are way better documentaries on this subject and a decent movie. Peace.
A Disgrace to the Victims
Chris_Opitz22 July 2023
I've seen many documentaries over the years on the Zodiac Killer as well as David Fincher's Zodiac film. Myth of the Zodiac Killer is by far the worst of them all. There is not a single shred of actual investigation done during this documentary despite it being well presented. That is the only positive I can give it. This documentary is a disgrace to the victims and everyone who has been affected by the murders. Thomas Henry Horan puts on his tin foil hat in an attempt to become famous. Robert Greysmith wasn't mentioned even once throughout this two part doc. Horan's theory of the Zodiac Killer being simply a hoax is preposterous and holds zero weight.
Speculatory Disguised As Documentary
helenahandbasket-9373412 November 2023
Where do I even begin to describe the absolute abomination calling himself some sort of Zodiac 'expert'? Tom Horan has a podcast and loves attention, and what better way to take in money over the brutal deaths of numerous people than to hurl ridiculous and insane theories with no proof whatsoever, with an unbelievably oblivious filmmaker? If this is what qualifies as a means to funding your picture, there's many of us who've lived long enough to go ahead and pull funds to do the same.
I'm not quite sure what qualifies him (Horan)- he proclaims that he's read all evidentiary information, every single news article, and since he's an English professor AND teaches journalism (this explains a lot in regards to our current state of what's now called journalism) he's now an expert. This somehow gives enough credentials to now make wild accusations and distortion of facts regarding the murders presumably perpetrated by 'Zodiac'.
What's worse is there's little to no resistance to the inflammatory and insidious attacks pushed into the ethos by this hacktivist. I would suppose that to present valid arguments against the insanity would completely negate making 2 episodes and the ultimate conclusion would be there's no 'there' there.
Even these other experts brought in to prop up this narrative are so unbelievably naive- as an example, the linguists. There's a rather bold proclamation that it's impossible to change handwriting and specific grammar in order to write many different letters and be seen as written by the same person, when there's supposedly so many inconsistencies that make it all but factual that more than one has written them. This, in and of itself, tells anyone with functioning brain cells that it is not only wrong but incredulous to assume.
I'm certain that journalists have completely lost their way (and minds) but it seems that filmmakers and financiers of said films have also sunken into a sort of delusional mindset, and one that suggests that you can say the most ridiculous things if you wait long enough so that almost everyone associated is either deceased, lost or no longer able to be interviewed for a multitude of reasons.
Make no mistake, I believe there exists evidence to suggest this may not have been the work of one person, but this simply doesn't put forth any verifiable evidence to support this cheap lawn chair of a production. If you're a student being instructed by Horan, I'd be demanding a full refund.
I'm not quite sure what qualifies him (Horan)- he proclaims that he's read all evidentiary information, every single news article, and since he's an English professor AND teaches journalism (this explains a lot in regards to our current state of what's now called journalism) he's now an expert. This somehow gives enough credentials to now make wild accusations and distortion of facts regarding the murders presumably perpetrated by 'Zodiac'.
What's worse is there's little to no resistance to the inflammatory and insidious attacks pushed into the ethos by this hacktivist. I would suppose that to present valid arguments against the insanity would completely negate making 2 episodes and the ultimate conclusion would be there's no 'there' there.
Even these other experts brought in to prop up this narrative are so unbelievably naive- as an example, the linguists. There's a rather bold proclamation that it's impossible to change handwriting and specific grammar in order to write many different letters and be seen as written by the same person, when there's supposedly so many inconsistencies that make it all but factual that more than one has written them. This, in and of itself, tells anyone with functioning brain cells that it is not only wrong but incredulous to assume.
I'm certain that journalists have completely lost their way (and minds) but it seems that filmmakers and financiers of said films have also sunken into a sort of delusional mindset, and one that suggests that you can say the most ridiculous things if you wait long enough so that almost everyone associated is either deceased, lost or no longer able to be interviewed for a multitude of reasons.
Make no mistake, I believe there exists evidence to suggest this may not have been the work of one person, but this simply doesn't put forth any verifiable evidence to support this cheap lawn chair of a production. If you're a student being instructed by Horan, I'd be demanding a full refund.
Engaging but absurd.
glengary6916 September 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I've always suspect Hartnell simply murdered Shepherd, faking his own attack. I'm primed for a version of ZODIAC where at least some of it is false. Yet this show is absolutely ridiculous. It goes along with Sons of Sam and Deep V Heard of "documentarians," who know absolutely nothing about their own subjects and rely on gimmicks/sensationalism. They're also so happy to just casually accuse people of serious crimes based on virtually no evidence, and somehow manage to avoid any real experts being interviewed.
Is it entertaining? Yes. Would I recommend it? Yeah. Do I believe it? Heck no. It's dumb.
Is it entertaining? Yes. Would I recommend it? Yeah. Do I believe it? Heck no. It's dumb.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
