... because he claims to have been privy to all kinds of plans by Allen that he never told anyone else, including plans to be a killer and name himself "Zodiac" months before the first alleged killing by Zodiac occurred in December 1968.
The documentary, about one of the more prominent suspects in the Zodiac murder case, lets people speak for themselves, including Ralph Spinelli, a mobbed up guy who knew Allen back in the 1950s, Don Cheney, someone who knew Allen in college and continued the association into the late 60s, author Robert Graysmith, and George Bawart, formerly of the Vallejo Police department who worked on the case.
Cheney was an engineer. Allen was a pedophile. The two seemed to have nothing really in common, yet Allen feels comfortable enough to lay out his cunning plan to terrorize California and confound the police and then execute that plan exactly? I'm not buying it.
The documentary also says that Kathleen Johns, the woman who was kidnapped off the side of the road by someone who was allegedly Zodiac in March 1970, identified the drawing for the murderer of Paul Stine as the person who attacked her. Yet that composite sketch looks nothing like Allen.
One could argue that Zodiac was one of the luckiest high profile murderers in true crime history. He left his bloody fingerprints on Paul Stine's cab, he left a palmprint impression on one of his letters, he provided investigators with samples of his handwriting, he left footprint impressions at the Lake Berryessa crime scene, he was viewed at the Stine crime scene, and the witnesses provided the police with a physical description. Even in the late 60's/early 70's, that should have been enough to catch this guy, but it was clear that law enforcement didn't come close to actually identifying Zodiac. Further proof of his argument is that, over 20 years ago, a partial DNA profile of Zodiac was obtained from the back of 2 stamps from his letters, yet none of the many pet suspects put forth by true crime authors are a match for this DNA profile.
