Really pushing for ALA.

The movie is based on Robert Graysmith's books Zodiac and Zodiac Unmasked. In both books, but particularly the latter, Graysmith essentially advocates Allen as the Zodiac. It stands to reason that the filmmakers would focus on Allen as the number one suspect, too. However, ALA was and I think remains to this day the prime suspect in the murders despite the lack of DNA evidence. Toschi from SFPD and VPD's Bawart believe he is guilty.

I'm going to re-read Zodiac, but I'm sure Graysmith states that one of / all the detectives that interviewed Allen in 1971 (Mulanax, Armstrong and Toschi) had commented that there was a definite shift in Allen's tone of voice. According to Graysmith, that did actually happen. However, I don't believe he ever uttered the words 'I'm not the Zodiac. And even if I was, I certainly wouldn't tell you.' I personally don't think he was trying to impersonate the Dunbar show caller - but Fincher included it to highlight Allen's disturbing behaviour.

One of the things that's so brilliant about this film is how we get to see the investigation play out from different perspectives i.e. the official police investigation through Armstrong and Toschi, the media's reaction to it through Avery, and the amateur investigation through Graysmith. Even though we're introduced to Allen in 1971, Graysmith doesn't even become aware of him until around the last half-hour. Its a fascinating play out of events. `

It's so hard for you all to receive the notion that Allen was the Zodiac, huh? By the way, pretty sure the person that called in to Belli on the morning show was not the killer.