Discussing the Netflix Docuseries; This is the Zodiac Speaking

Episode 40 Discussing the Netflix Docuseries; This is the Zodiac Speaking

In this episode, hosts Morf and Richard are joined by Blackbox Online Radio host, Ned Dehan. They discuss the current his Netflix douseries; This is the Zodiac Speaking, which explores the claims of the Seawater family. They share their experiences and stories of time spent with Zodiac suspect Arthur Leigh Allen.


To listen to every episode of this show AD-FREE and get benefits like bonus and early-access episodes of every other show on the AbJack Network, consider an AbJack Insider subscription from Apple Podcasts.


For all things Zodiac Speaking, check out our homepage:
https://www.abjackentertainment.com/zodiac-speaking


Follow Zodiac Speaking on Facebook at:
https://www.facebook.com/Zodiac-Speaking-Podcast-105911481547105

or on Twitter at:
https://twitter.com/PodcastZodiac

Visit Mike Morford's Zodiac site at:
https://zodiackiller.net/

And Richard Grinell's Zodiac site at:
https://www.zodiacciphers.com/

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
You're listening to Zodiac Speaking, brought to you by Abject Entertainment.
Be sure to check out some of the other great
true crime podcasts from this network, including The Murder in
My Family, Missing Persons, dna ID Beyond, Bizarre, True Crime,
Scene of the Crime, and Campus Killings. All of these

(00:21):
podcasts are available for you to binge on right now.
Wherever you listen to podcasts, subscribe where you're listening to
this podcast so you don't miss an episode.

Speaker 2 (00:54):
This is a Zodiac Speaking Welcome back to an all
new episode of Zodiac Speaking podcast. It's been a while
since we've had an episode out. This is Mike Morford
and I am here as usual with co host Richard Grenell,
and we have a special guest, Nedda han On, and

(01:17):
we're going to do things a little bit differently than
we do normally on the show. And in most episodes
you've listened to, we've had a you know, a sort
of a deep dive with some backstory about what we're
talking about, and then you know, it would be followed
with rich and I having a discussion about the details.
But now we're just going to dive into, you know,

(01:39):
something that's making headlines right now and have a roundtable discussion.
And that's the Netflix docuseries. This is the Zodiac speaking
and we'll get into that. We'll talk about the pros
and cons of it, the pushback, what people are saying,
and all that kod stuff. But just right up front,
I want to welcome both of you guys. You're rich.

(02:02):
Good to talk to you again and Ned, good to
have you on.

Speaker 3 (02:06):
Hi Mike, how are you.

Speaker 2 (02:09):
Awesome? How you doing that?

Speaker 4 (02:12):
I'm doing just fine and thanks for having me more good.

Speaker 2 (02:15):
Good to have you here. And it's always a pleasure
to talk to you too. And I'm sure most of
our listeners are going to know you, Ned, but if
you can just give us a quick introduction for yourself
and where people can find you in the stuff you do.

Speaker 4 (02:29):
Sure thing. My name is nedd Han. I am the
host of black Box Online Radio and I put out
regular segments about the Zodiac, Killer, Jack the Ripper, and
dB Cooper. I'm also a regular panelist on the channel
Mysteries with mister Belgeek, which people can find on YouTube,
and you can also get my show black Box Online
Radio on Spotify for free as well as Apple podcasts

(02:50):
under the names black Box True Crime or Black Box podcast.
And it's good to be back on Zodiac Speaking. Last
time I was here, we were talking about discovery of
Donald Lass's remains or the identification of Donal Lass's remains rather,
And thanks for having me on again.

Speaker 2 (03:07):
Yeah, And what's great about nad For anybody that hasn't
listened to his show, he always finds some interesting stuff
to talk about on his show, Zodiac Wise, and he
can always find a topic that's either making news or
people are talking about it or you know, asking about it.
So he touches on a lot of different subjects. And

(03:27):
Rich on his site, you know, he's always putting out
different articles on all kinds of Zodiac stuff. So I
whenever I want a sort of a refresher course on
what's going on in Zodiac world, I just hop over
to Rich's website or to Ned's YouTube channel and I
see what they're talking about. So I guess the thing

(03:50):
that we're talking about here today we want to dive
into is this Netflix. You know, this is the Zodiac
Speaking document Henery, which is about Arthur Lee Allen and
essentially sort of piggybacks off the book. You know, I
guess that you know Grace Smith's book that he was

(04:12):
the Zodiac and just heads up, I guess we should
probably say spoiler alert. We're going to talk about some
details that they talk about in the series. So if
for some reason you haven't seen it and you want it,
you don't want to be spoiled, you know, you might
want to pause this episode and then come back and
listen to it. But and in fairness and full disclosure,

(04:34):
Richard hasn't seen this over in the UK, but net
and I have, so we can, you know, sort of
talk about it, and rich can push back on some
of the things and respond to some of the things
we talk about. But I guess if you want to
open it up that what were your takeaways and your
impressions overall of the documentary?

Speaker 4 (04:58):
My honest response is that it was better than I
I thought because a lot of people watched the documentary
before I did, and I was getting a couple messages
and looking at a lot of posts in the Facebook
groups as well as other places on social media, and
I heard nothing but bad responses. Everybody was saying that
they didn't like the documentary, and I think the biggest
criticism was that it didn't provide a lot of new information.

(05:21):
This documentary, This is the Zodiac Speaking, is telling the
story of the Seawaters, Dave, Connie, and Don Seawater, three
children who grew up more or less with Arthur Lee Allen.
He was a school teacher for a period of time.
And they also interviewed some of the other students that
interacted with mister Allen as he is called in the documentary.
And a lot of people were saying that the Seawaters

(05:43):
used to have a YouTube channel and they told all
of these stories on their YouTube channel. All right, maybe
we got a few more details, but they were just
very disappointed that it wasn't sharing a lot of new information.
So I went into this documentary with absolutely zero enthusiasm,
and I came away from watching all three episodes feeling
better than when I went in. I was like, all right,
you know, it's better than what I expected. Everybody was

(06:05):
making it sound like this is going to be the
worst Zodiac documentary ever. I was like, it was well doe,
it was well produced, and it's well put together. They
also had Robert Graysmith on there, you know, doing his
usual spiel, which he hasn't done in a while. But overall, though,
I guess you'd say I was pleasantly surprised in some parts.

Speaker 2 (06:25):
So I was sort of the same bat. I wasn't
going to watch it at all. I didn't want to
watch anything telling me that, you know, Arthur Lee Allen
was there, because I've in my mind, I've ruled him out.
You know, every bit of evidence in this case seems
to rule him out. So for me, I was like, Okay,
this is not something I'm going to watch. But then

(06:46):
when we started talking about having an episode of the
podcast and having you know, ned On to talk about it,
you know, I said, Okay, I've got to do the
homework and go out and watch this show. So that's
what I did. I did go out and watch it,
and I, like you, I thought it was well produced.
I thought it was well done. I thought it was

(07:09):
a good documentary. As far as quality. It wasn't like,
it wasn't something that somebody haphazardly threw together and you know,
made with a super low budget. It is well done,
well produced. Now I'll say this, I don't believe the
conclusions that are drawn. I don't necessarily believe everything that's

(07:30):
said in the documentary. I still don't think Arthur Leellen
was Zodiac, but we can, you know, get into some
of the stuff that you know, they did talk about
in the show and sort of debate that and what
we think about that. So I guess you sort of

(07:51):
gave a good synopsis of it that was based on
the Seawater siblings. What was your your takeaway about everything
they said, their claims, What did you think about what
they had to say?

Speaker 4 (08:05):
Need Well, one thing that I thought was extremely neglected
in the documentary is that the Seawaters were not an
agreement that Arthur Lee Allen was the Zodiac killer. As
I said during my introduction, I'm a panelist on the
show Mysteries with Mister Beljiku, which is hosted by Jeromi Lowe,
and he was corresponding with Connie Seawater, and she told

(08:27):
him directly that she doesn't think that Arthur Lee Allen
was the Zodiac and the primary elements in their stories
are not even about the Zodiac crimes of nineteen sixty
eight and sixty nine, the confirmed Zodiac crimes. The primary
elements that I saw in that documentary, we're talking about
witnessing possible events leading up to the unconfirmed Zodiac crimes,

(08:48):
the Gaviota Beach shooting and the murder of Sherry Joe
Bates in particular. And I think it's even fair to
say that those would be the strongest claims that they
put forward in the documentary that the Seawaters were claiming
that they were with ur Thurley Allen in southern California
on the dates that those crimes happened. One of them
that is perhaps the most famous story from their YouTube channel,

(09:10):
which you can also hear in the documentary, is they
were on the California coast, which they claimed is near
where the Gaviota Beach shooting took place. Although it's south
of Gaviota Beach, we just call it the Gaviota shooting.
And this was June fourth of nineteen sixty three, and
Arthur the Alan went to the store. He bought beer
and twenty two caliber long rifle super ex ammunition, multiple

(09:33):
boxes of it, I guess, and he's just carrying it
under his arm. He goes back to the car, then
he drives to someplace on the coast off of Route
one oh one, and then he just goes down to
the seaside for about an hour. By himself. He comes
back with blood on his hand and forearms, and then
allegedly that's the same day of the murders of Robert
Domingos and Linda Edwards. Now this is where things are

(09:56):
a little bit difficult to unravel. What do I think
about these claims. I think everything that the seawaters are
saying is true, except I don't think they actually saw
Arthur Lee Allen carrying multiple boxes of twenty two caliber
long rifle super ex ammunition, because I think that might
be something they got confused on. What I think happened

(10:18):
is you have three siblings, and I think when they
first were exposed to the stories of Robert Domingos and
Linda Edwards, as well as Cherry Joe Bates and all
of these unconfirmed crimes in southern California, one of them
was thinking, oh, hey, hey, don't you remember we were
with mister Allen on that day. Remember that day we
took the trip to the seaside. Yeah, yeah, I think

(10:40):
that was June fourth, nineteen sixty three. Remember he had
blood on his hands. I think that's the same day.
And then the other two are starting to think, wait, yeah,
I think you're right, And then they begin to create
this type of false memory. And I have a lot
of reasons why I think that, But if you want
to kind of jump in now, maybe we can talk
about that throughout the duration of the recording.

Speaker 2 (11:01):
Yeah, and I'm with you one hundred percent there. I mean,
the siblings came across as believable, and to me, that
being said, I don't believe what they said. So I'm
kind of conflicted. They seem believable. I don't know them.
I don't want to say somebody's lying, but I also
don't believe what they said that they were. And it

(11:24):
wasn't just that they were there, you know, in the
date that Domingos and Edwards were killed, but they distinctly
named the beach. They mentioned going to Vandenberg Air Force
Base to buy the bullets. It just gets too precise,
and then the same thing happens. They placed themselves in

(11:46):
the riverside on October thirty, nineteen sixty six. To me,
it's just too precise and just too outlandish that if
Arthur Lee Allen was this killer, that he would bring
them there. So I try to keep an open mind
and save myself. Well, maybe they really did go on
road trips with Alan. But maybe they're just confusing these dates,

(12:09):
or they've talked themselves, like you mentioned between the three
of them, maybe said hey, we remember that time we
went down on the riverside. Maybe it was on the
date Charity of Bates was murdered. It just seems too
precise to be you know, to be real. And like
I said, they come across as as you know, just

(12:29):
watching them, not knowing them at all, they seem believable.
I just don't believe what they had to say.

Speaker 4 (12:41):
Well more about oh oh sorry, Richard, having Like, I
think I can clear things up very neatly. We can
say that they are not liars. They are mistaken because
it's the same way that people tell stories, like through
a game of telephone or Chinese whispers, where the story
gets modified a little bit and at the end you

(13:01):
have somebody saying something that wasn't the original idea. But
they're not giving away any of the tilltale signs of line.
They're not saying anything that sounds like they are deceptive.
They don't act like they're making the stuff up for profit.
They've also talked about this stuff for decades, and I mean,
we can go into some of those stories. But I
think that an easy way to put it is they're
not liars, they're mistaken.

Speaker 2 (13:24):
I'd have to agree with you.

Speaker 3 (13:27):
Is it fair to say that this statement on reading
here is what they said in the documentary? It says
here when they arrived at the beach on June the fourth,
nineteen sixty three, The children claim that Alan immediately ran
away and left them to play by themselves. He returned
to Tujiguous beach That's how you pronounce it, out of

(13:49):
breath and with his hands covered in something red, before
bundling the children into the car and racing away. Is
that the beach that they mentioned in the documentary?

Speaker 4 (14:00):
Yes? I mean, like we always call it the Gavioda Cooting,
but it's how did you pronounce it? Tahigue was something.

Speaker 3 (14:07):
Like dhu Ass, Yes, but that wasn't the correct beach.
It was Canada del Molino. So they've got the wrong
beach straight off the bat.

Speaker 4 (14:18):
Is that right? Wow? Like, because I'm not even gonna
lie to you, guys, I don't. I'm American, but I
struggle with a lot of some of these Southern California
place names, and that's why we just call it the
beach the south of Gaviota, and that's more or less
the way it's discussed on the Zodiac World. Well, that's fascinating, Richard.

Speaker 3 (14:35):
Well, I believe to Higuous Beach, if that's how you say,
it is west of the actual crime scene. I don't
know the exact distance, but maybe a few miles. So
if that's what they've claimed, they've got the wrong location
from the very start.

Speaker 2 (14:52):
We'll see.

Speaker 4 (14:53):
That.

Speaker 2 (14:53):
To me is another odd thing because I'm thinking back
to when I was a kid and I would go
someplace with people, and for me to pick out a
place I went on a certain date. They weren't from
Santa Barbara. They were from, you know, northern California. So

(15:14):
how would they remember the name of the specific beach
that they were trying to say they went to, And
how would they know it as a child at that
age and remember back that it was such and such
beach on June fourth, specifically nineteen sixty three. Those are
the issues I have with it. Let's hear it. Let's

(15:37):
hear what you have to say.

Speaker 3 (15:38):
You look at older reports about the Domingus and Edwards murders,
they mentioned the murders took place on Ta Higeous Beach.
So if the seawaters were ever going to read or
old stuff to then refresh their memories as such, that's
what they would have said, which means they're not recollecting
it from original thoughts and memories, they're recollecting it from

(16:02):
what they've read online, which was originally incorrect.

Speaker 2 (16:07):
Yeah, and that's then that's fair because if they really
had and they're telling the truth, had gone to southern
California and Santa Barbara in that area with Arthur Lee
Allen and this event that they said happened, if it
really happened, they may have talked themselves in after reading
up on the case that it was that beach on

(16:27):
that date. But as you point out, you know, it's
not the correct beach anyway. So does that throw their whole,
you know, story about that day into question. You know,
the the the whole Arthur Lee Allen saga is. So

(16:49):
you know, you've got Don Cheney that says, you know,
my friend Arthur Lee Allen told me before the first
Zodiac murder that he was going to be the Zodiac
and he was going to start killing people and sending
letters to the press and all this stuff and then
you know it. To me, that's always been so unbelievable
that that story either has to be one hundred percent

(17:12):
true and Arthur Walen really said that, or it's one
hundred percent a lie that Don Cheney said that. He
said that, I don't you know, I don't know which
is which, but there's no in between. You know, he
either said that or he didn't say that, And then
you would have to think that if he said that,

(17:33):
it really was Zodiac. But then you have him, according
to this documentary, bringing these kids along with him in
two suspected Zodiac murders. So if those kids were really
with him in Riverside on the day shared you Bates
was murdered, and in Santa Barbara when Domingos and Edwards
were murdered, and he really set all the stuff to

(17:57):
Don Cheney, you you would almost have to come away
believing that he's Zodiac. And there's no other room for debate.
It's either he was or all this stuff made up
against him. What do you guys think about that?

Speaker 4 (18:16):
Well, oh, wait, a morph I don't necessarily think that
this is all made up. I mean, I'm not talking
about Don Chaney.

Speaker 2 (18:22):
But the sea Waters.

Speaker 4 (18:24):
Now, after watching the documentary and after giving it some thought,
what I think happened is just to add a couple
other points. Richard was reading the summary. Now, they say
that they're in the car with Arthur Lee Allen. They're
driving around southern California. They stop on the coast and
Arthur Lee Allen is gone for about an hour, and
he comes back with blood on his hand and forearms,

(18:45):
and Connie Seawater gets out of the car to go
and help him because she can see that something is wrong,
and I mean, she will see quickly that he's bleeding,
and then he just pushed her out of the way
because he was mad. What I think happened is this
is purely my analysis of this, my take on the subject.
I think that that event actually did happen. I think

(19:06):
that they actually did go on a car trip with
Arthur Lee Allen somewhere somewhere in the state of California. Okay,
mister Allen left the car and he came back after
a while, and he had cut his hands somewhere. I mean,
but there's absolutely no way to verify that was June fourth,
nineteen sixty three. There's absolutely no way to verify that
he went to commit a murder. And also there's no

(19:27):
way to verify that that actually was at the beach
where Robert Domingos and Linda Edwards got murdered. I think
that they actually spent time with Arthur Lee Allen and
they went on those car trips. I think all of
that stuff is real. I have no reason to doubt them.
And those parts of the story are so easily believable.
It's all of the stuff about the homicides that is

(19:47):
hard for me to accept.

Speaker 2 (19:49):
Yeah, and the thing is, I think the documentary they
say it as almost fact, correct me if I'm wrong.
I don't remember them saying, oh, I think it was
June fourth. They say it almost matter of fact, it
was June fourth, you know. But and if I'm wrong,
please correct me. That's the way I remember that. They

(20:09):
were very specific about these dates, you know. And again,
you know, to me, if Arthur le Allen was really
there on those dates, we'd have to almost assume he
was the zodiac. It would just be too insane not
to think it was him. If he was in Riverside

(20:31):
on the date and I'm Santa Barbara on the date,
and you know it would just be bonkers. The odds
of that if him not being Zodiac would would be minimal.

Speaker 4 (20:46):
I know Richard has something, so Richard can go first.

Speaker 3 (20:49):
I was just going to say it wouldn't prove he
was a Zodiac because we don't. We don't have those
crimes under the Zodiac banner for starters. So he could
quite easily have come the Riverside crime and the Domingus
Negwoods crime and still not be the Zodiac. But I
would say, unless these children claim they had diaries. I

(21:10):
don't know about you, Mike, but I couldn't throw myself
back four or five decades to remember an exact date.

Speaker 2 (21:19):
I'm the same way.

Speaker 3 (21:20):
I couldn't.

Speaker 2 (21:20):
I mean I tried thinking back to when I was
a kid, thinking about different things I did, and I
couldn't tell you a date like I. You know, if
you asked me about when I graduated from high school,
I can remember the graduation, but I couldn't tell you
what date it was. I could tell you it was
in June of nineteen eighty nine, and that's about it.
But there's you know, certain things, unless it's like your birthday,

(21:42):
it's something specific like that, where it's the day you know,
if it was Christmas, you know, you know on a
certain year when you turn ten, I mean, certain things
might make it stand out. But June fourth, nineteen sixty three,
on October thirtieth, nineteen sixty six, I mean, maybe you
could with the Baits case, you could say it was

(22:05):
the day before Halloween. I remember it because it was
the day before Halloween. But the June fourth date, especially
for Dominio's edwards, just seemed so random that someone would
be able to specifically remember that date.

Speaker 4 (22:17):
Well, to be fair, like, I mean, I'm kind of
like saying, thinking what you guys are thinking, Like, I
don't remember what I had for breakfast. And also when
you are a kid, sometimes you will remember something that's
completely wrong, and you know, like so many times, I've
been thinking about something that happened when I was a kid. Yeah,
that happened when I was three years old. I remember
it so clearly. What I'm thinking about is I remembered

(22:40):
my third birthday party, and a lot of people told
me that I couldn't have done that, and I actually
went back, you know, through some family photos, and I
found out it was my fifth birthday party that I
was thinking about. You know that's off by a full
two years, which would be something that's easier for a
kid to remember. And you know, with the seawaters, Like
I said, I think they went on these car trips
with Arthur Lee out and I don't think three kids

(23:01):
would forget that they were with Arthur Leallan driving around somewhere.
But I mean June fourth, nineteen sixty three at X
time in the afternoon, I don't think so. But the
challenge question that I had for both of you guys
is especially for more of after watching the documentary, where
did Arthur le Allen get the twenty two caliber firearm

(23:22):
for the Gaviota shooting Well?

Speaker 2 (23:26):
Correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't it a rifle that
was determined to be the weapon in that case?

Speaker 3 (23:30):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (23:31):
More than yeah, it was. It was it was belated
to be a rifle.

Speaker 3 (23:35):
Yeah, because there was a group of fifteen casings just
off the coastline, and some rifles hold fifteen capacity, whereas
a pistol or a gun would hold less, and they
were grouped together, so it was speculated that it was
more than lightly a rifle.

Speaker 2 (23:53):
Yeah. And I don't know enough about guns. I mean,
I shoot guns. I own guns, but I don't know
enough about them to know. Like a like the AMMO
used at Lake Herman Road was long rifle AMMO, which
I think you could use also in a rifle and
a twenty two rifle. I think you can use a

(24:14):
twenty two rifle long rifle AMMO in the rifle or
the handgun. So maybe they could have thought it was
a rifle based on it being long rifle AMMO that
was found at the Domengos Edwards crime scene, or maybe
they did some additional testing firm that it was a rifle.
But it was my understanding that it was a rifle.
But which makes it a little bit harder to believe

(24:39):
that Alan would pull over, take out a rifle and
walk down to the beach, and you think one of
the kids would see that. And I remember in the
documentary they did say you had something with them. I
don't remember how they described it, but I think a
rifle would be something that would stand out. It would
be hard for him to hide walking down to a
beach with a rifle, and how would he would he

(25:00):
just randomly come upon two kids down there? He decides
he's going to walk down the rifle and loan behold,
there's two kids there. There's just something that I just
have a hard time believing.

Speaker 4 (25:11):
But wait a second more. If that's why it's a
challenge question, because you're right in the documentary they say
he opened up the trunk and he took something out,
But the boxes of ammunition are found in the seaside
shack at Gaviota Beach. So did Arthur Lee Allen walk
take the gun out of the car without the kids
actually noticing, walk to the seaside shack with the boxes,

(25:32):
load his gun there in the seaside shack for no reason,
while just waiting for somebody to come, or was he
scouting Bobby Domingos and Linda Edwards the whole time? I mean,
that makes no sense to me. That makes absolutely no sense.
Why he would park the car, walk to the seaside
shack purely just to load the gun, to leave the
boxes behind, which could have all types of incriminating evidence

(25:54):
on it if he had just bought it from a
store and touched it with his bare hands. I mean,
this is something where I think it's a genuine problem
in their story. I think this sequence defense is all
out of whack, and I think that if he had
parked the car because he saw Bobby Domingo's's car there,
he would have walked straight down to the beach and
there would be absolutely no reason why those boxes of

(26:15):
ammo are left in the seaside shack. Or then if
he were by himself, he could have waited in the
shack for a while, but he has the Seawater kids
with them, so I don't think that he would have
had any reason to do that.

Speaker 2 (26:27):
And I don't think they even I don't think they
mentioned seeing a car when they pulled over at Santa Barbara,
and I don't call yeah, yeah. My belief is that
if the police believe that Domingos Edwards shooter saw their
car there, pulled over and went down because he saw

(26:48):
their car there, But here they don't mention it in
this documentary. The kids don't mention seeing another car that
they just say Alan pulled over went down to the beach.
So that seems like a hole in the in the
story there.

Speaker 3 (27:01):
Yeah, like Ned said, getting out of his vehicle and
walking down with four boxes of ammunition to commit a
murder is pretty ludicrous, especially when I think one of
the boxes was empty and the boxes were related to
one another, So you certainly aren't going to carry an

(27:22):
empty box or a partially full box. If anything, You're
going to go down with one weapon or maybe two
fully loaded, to commit your murder and leave. There's no
reason why you'd be associated with four boxes that were
associated with the crime.

Speaker 2 (27:39):
And looking at this from outside of the Zodiac world,
if I was just a person that didn't know anything
about this case and I was hearing this story, I
would say, it's not believable to me that somebody that's
going down to commit a double murder, it is just
going to leave these kids hanging around in a car.
Who knows if a police officer is going to come along,
or somebody's gonna pull over and ask if they're okay
because there's no adult around. It just seems far fetched

(28:03):
to me that somebody would commit a murder, leave these
kids up in the car for an extended period of
time to be discovered whatever to happen, And I just
have a hard time accepting that that could really happen.

Speaker 3 (28:21):
Did the Seawaters concentrate on the non canonical crimes to
attach Arthur Lee Allen to Did they mention anything about
the canonical crimes.

Speaker 4 (28:31):
Oh, certainly they're mentioned, but they focused on the non
canonical ones, particularly Gaviota and Riverside.

Speaker 3 (28:38):
So why do you think they did that?

Speaker 4 (28:41):
Well, I think it's because they have these very clear
memories of being with Alan on those days. And also
also they went to the racetrack, which they said Riverside, California.
But I'll have a question about that later on. And
they said Arthur Lee Allen took them to the racetrack,
and they saw Steve McQueen in a car at the racetrack,
and again something like that. I don't think that they're

(29:04):
making up. Ye, Okay, they went out with Arthur Lee Allen,
they saw Steve McQueen. That's something the kids would remember.
But then later on there I guess they're stay until
the evening time and then Arthur Lee Allen goes to
murder Sherry Joe Bates.

Speaker 3 (29:18):
We we have pictures of them with Alan next to
his vehicle. But do we have proof these journeys ever
took place?

Speaker 2 (29:29):
No, I mean, I don't think so, Ned. I think
it's just their word them saying that they did these trips.

Speaker 4 (29:39):
Canaya jump in on that one, because you know, I
mean absolutely no disrespect to Connie Seawater. But when she
was in the documentary, what I was thinking was, this
is Deborah Perez all over again, the woman who was
accusing her adopted father of being the Zodiac, saying that
he drove her to the crime scenes and she would

(29:59):
wait in the car and she could hear the gunshots.
And you know, by most people's accounts, they don't think
that she was a liar. They think that she was
mistaken exactly the way I said about the Seawaters, where
somebody gets confused, exactly what Richard said. They learned these
details about the case, so then they start inventing these

(30:20):
types of memories and they're just mistaken. But Deborah Perez
received a lot of attention about oh, fifteen years ago
thereabouts for accusing guy Ward Hendrickson of being the Zodiac,
and I think that she was just absolutely off the mark.
And she contacted a true crime writer named m William

(30:40):
Phelps who was going to explore her story for a
potential book, and he is the one who flat out
said she believes everything she's saying. It's just I think
she's wrong, and that's ultimately why, you know, he didn't
go further with her.

Speaker 3 (30:55):
How how do you separate the difference between embellishment and lying, Ned.

Speaker 4 (31:02):
Well, I didn't necessarily use the word embellishment. I mean
people can make mistakes with lying. I think that it's
done in a calculated way, in a deliberate way. When
someone is mistaken, I think it's unintentional. And how do
I differentiate that with certainty?

Speaker 2 (31:20):
I can't.

Speaker 4 (31:20):
I can't tell you that the Seawaters are, you know,
telling all this stuff out of the goodness of their heart.
But I mean, this is what I think they are doing,
because I'm really not saying a lot that they would
have to gain from this, other than sure, you get
to be mentioned on a Netflix special, but for very
bad things, mind you.

Speaker 2 (31:40):
Yeah. And I again, just hearing them and watching them,
they seem believable. I don't get the vibe from them
that they're making this up, that they're you know, they're
just telling lie after lie. It seems like they legitimately
believe it. I'm in Ned's camp. I think they did

(32:03):
the trips with R. Lily Allen, and I think they've
just gone back and filled in the blank since said
remember that road trip we took and he went down
to the beach. I you know, somehow they arrived at
it being June fourth, nineteen sixty three, you know, and
going to Riverside somehow they you know, I think they've

(32:24):
in their minds come to the conclusion it was October
thirty at nineteen sixty six. So for me, I think
ned's probably right, you know, since they do seem sincere
that they're just conflating these dates. And in the documentary,
let's not twenty punches. The documentary storytellers, the TV people

(32:46):
want you to come away believing Arthurly Allen was a zodiac.
So they painted and they edit it to you know,
no matter what the seawaters. The seawaters may have had
a scene where they said, I can't tell you that
it was June fort nineteen sixty three, and that didn't
go in the documentary because it wouldn't be as compelling,
you know, if they if they said anything that cast
out and somebody that's worked on TV myself, I know

(33:10):
they will selectively edit what you say so that it
doesn't you don't get a full telling of the story.
You could ask the sea waters and they might tell
you that, yeah, we told them we couldn't confirm what
date it was, but that somehow didn't go into the
documentarybody the filmmakers because it wouldn't be as compelling a story.

Speaker 3 (33:29):
Yeah, I was. I was surprised to hear you'd watched it, Mike,
because you know, probably like you have the same opinion
as me that Arthur Lee Allen was not the Zodiac
Killer one hundred percent. So I was surprised that you
even gave it a chance, if you know.

Speaker 2 (33:49):
What, I did, only because I wanted to be more
you know, aware what we're talking about for this episode.
That's the only reason I watched it. I ate it
was interesting. They did have a lot of never before
seeing Alan footage, at least I had never seen it.
They did talk a lot more about his background and
some of that stuff, so it was a little bit

(34:11):
more interesting. They went into detail about the reporter that
interviewed him at his home, so there were some elements
of it that helped talk a little bit more about
his role and everything that he did. But you know,
I also they also basically say right out in the

(34:33):
episode that he molested one of the Seawater girls and
and correct me if I'm wrong.

Speaker 5 (34:40):
Was was he accused of molesting boys. Yeah, was it
boys and girls or just boys? I had thought it
was boys, but maybe I'm not remembering that.

Speaker 3 (34:52):
Correctly suggested he touched There was a suggestion that he
touched the daughter of Don Cheney, I think. But later
on he was supposed to have molested some boys as well.

Speaker 4 (35:08):
And yes, if you're going to talk about like sims
and allegations, then yes, Arthur Lee Allen was definitely accused
of molesting both boys and girls. But I think what
you're talking about Morephause, what sent him to a Taska
Daro in seventy four, right, was the molestations of boys?
Is that right? Richard?

Speaker 3 (35:28):
Say that again?

Speaker 4 (35:28):
Ned, what sent Arthur Lee Allen to a Taska Darrow
was the molestation of boys? Right?

Speaker 3 (35:35):
That's correct?

Speaker 4 (35:35):
Yeah, it was it seventy four, seventy five. It might
have been even seventy five, right.

Speaker 2 (35:40):
It was.

Speaker 3 (35:41):
I think it was seventy four strokes around now. Yeah,
I mean it's a long times I've read much on
Arthur Lee Allen, but it yeah, it was the time
before he went to a Tuscadero.

Speaker 2 (35:53):
Yeah. So, and it's not to say that a pedophile
could West boys and girls, and maybe he did, but
you know, that was one of the things. It's a
girl in the family that he's accused of molesting in
this documentary, and before there had been mentioned of him
molusting boys. But he certainly could have, you know, been

(36:16):
a moluster of just children in general. But I think
I was gonna say, I just think that's you know,
not saying Alan Arthur Leon is a good guy in
any stretch. But you know, he's a convicted pedophile. He's
not a convicted murderer. And I think a lot of
people have painted him with that brush. You know, it

(36:40):
still could be a scumbag from lusting kids. It doesn't
mean he's a serial killer.

Speaker 4 (36:46):
No, absolutely not. But I think that a clear way
to describe Arthur Lee Allen is that he was a bisexual.
It seems like he preferred both males and females and more.
Though in the documentary, though, there is a conversation with
Dave Seawater that he as with Arthur Lee Allen about
a month before he dies, but Alan confesses to drugging
the children. Like Dave Sewater was saying to the effect of,

(37:09):
thank you for being so good to us. He's like no,
I have to confess something to you. I drugged you kids.
And I thought that he was giving specific reference to
the fact that he drugged all three of the sea waters.
But did I misunderstand that.

Speaker 2 (37:24):
They He did come off that way to me, that
they were all drugged.

Speaker 4 (37:28):
Possibly he didn't say he molested, but I thought that
was the implication that he drugged them so that, you know,
he would have access to them.

Speaker 2 (37:36):
He could, and he did. He did tell the one
girl that he you know, he asked her how her
life was and she said pretty good. And he made
the comment, it must have been those good drugs that
I gave you, like she would like her life wouldn't
be good if she remembered what he did to her.
Was the intimation with that. So, you know the things

(38:02):
with Zodiac, there's you know, his crimes. Maybe he got
some kind of sexual gratification from them, some in some
sick way, but they weren't sexual in nature. He didn't
rape anybody, He didn't molest anybody. He simply got in
and got out, killed them quickly, and attacked quickly and

(38:25):
got as fast as he could for the most part.
So Arthur Lee Allen to me has never really never
really fit the mold. If he's a sexual product or
a pedophile, that never really matched Zodiac. Zodiac never showed
any interest in children other than mentioning school buses and

(38:45):
stuff like that, But he didn't seem like a pedophile
in his writings.

Speaker 4 (38:52):
Yeah, I think that if there was some type of
pedophile urge in the Zodiac, wouldn't he have done that
at least one, two or three victims or something like
targeting children at all? I mean children that are within
a sexual orientation. Because what people are saying as well,
you got to understand about the Zodiac Killer, he was
the kind of person that would go after anybody, right well,

(39:14):
apparently not going after the type of people that were
in Arthur Lee Allen's sexual orbit. I mean the people
that he would have actually gotten after for his other crimes.
So I'm just not seeing it either.

Speaker 3 (39:27):
What I would say is, in terms of the Zodiac Killer,
we only know a fraction of his life. We've got
the letters, and we've got four canonical crimes. So I
don't suppose we can rule out that he was anything
in the rest of his life. He could have been
a pedipal, He could have abducted women. We just don't know.

(39:49):
We can only assume what we know from the letters
and the four crimes. So the rest of his life,
which is probably ninety nine percent of the rest of
his life, he could have been anything in theory.

Speaker 2 (40:02):
H I mean that that is true. And you know,
we're left with, you know, in the in the Netflix documentary,
we're left with believing or not believing what the kids say,
you know, or at least believing that they believe it,
because maybe, as we've talked about, they went there on
these different days and just decided that it was the

(40:25):
dates in question of some suspected Zodiac crimes. But you know,
I think you come away from that documentary either believing
you know, most people I should say not everybody, but
most people might say, oh, I believe he was a
Zodiac This makes it, This makes it all the more likely.

(40:49):
I I don't see that because of the evidence. Let's
talk a little bit about the evidence against our Arthur
Lee Allen. We know that his his palm and fingerprints
don't match what they have on file. We know that

(41:10):
the DNA and although it was compared to a grade
you know, degraded questionable sample that was on the outside
of an envelope. You know, we can debate whether that
was really a Zodiac DNA or not. That does not
match Arthur Lee Allen. His handwriting doesn't match, His guns
don't match. You know, who has never discovered to own

(41:31):
any guns that Zodiac used. So there's nothing physically that
ties Zodiac to Arthur Lee Allen. You know, everything that
they have that they've tested against him, that they've compared
to him does not match. So to me, all of
that tells me he's not Arthur. You know, Arthur Le
Allen is not Zodiac. But the police, especially Vallejo police,

(41:54):
seem to be, you know, still going down the Arthur
Lee Allen abit. Hold. I'm just curious what you guys
think about the evidence against Alan.

Speaker 3 (42:04):
Well, what I would say is Lieutenant Tom Bruton and
Lieutenant Vince Repetto both claimed that the DNA of Arthur
Lee Allen and Lawrence Kane did not match the DNA
from the nineteen seventy eight letter. Now we all have
different opinions on that. I think it's one hundred percent genuine,

(42:27):
so that immediately rules him out. For me, The bloody
fingerprints ruled him out. His the fact he had no
hair rules him out somewhat. His weight rules him out.
And I'm not a fan of handwriting analysis, but I
would say that other people have ruled him out on
the basis of handwriting. So nothing evidentially links Arthur Lee

(42:53):
Allen to any of these crimes. And that's why I
don't think he's a zodi At killer. But of course,
if you don't want to believe the seventy eight letters genuine,
and you don't want to believe the bloody fingerprints on
the taxi cab as Zodiac, then everything's still open for you.

Speaker 2 (43:10):
And that's the is that you know, people will say, well,
this letter or that letter is not generous. It doesn't matter.
I mean, you brought up a good point with the
him not looking like the zodiac sketch. You know, I
say this all the time in different debates on Tom's forum.
You know, people are like, oh, this guy looked exactly

(43:32):
like the sketchery. He looked nothing like the sketch. And
I keep you know, reminding people is from fifty feet
away at night, You're not going to get a perfect likeness.
It's not like the person is sitting there posing for
an artist. It's based on recollections from kids that saw
him from fifty feet away at night. So I think

(43:53):
if I and I'm you know, if I look across
the street and I see a heavy set guy with
glasses a crew cut, I might be able to tell
you that. But if I sit down with a sketch
artist and try and recreate that sketch, I'm bound to
be off on the shape of the nose, the shape
of the lips, the shape of the ears, that kind
of stuff. I think you could say from fifty feet

(44:15):
away at night that it was a you know, heavy
set guy with glasses and a crew cut. But to me,
that's where Alan comes in, because he didn't have a
crew cut. He was a ball guy.

Speaker 4 (44:26):
You know.

Speaker 2 (44:26):
If I saw a bald guy from across the street
and I could see he was bald, I would say
he was bald. And Arthur Lee Allen never wore glasses,
you know, for the most part. I think I've seen
him with some reading lessones at one time or another.
So unless he was really using a disguise the way
the already said, he wouldn't naturally be wearing glasses. So
everything about him does not match the sketch on top

(44:49):
of everything else that we just pointed out, what do
you think that.

Speaker 4 (44:53):
Well, you want to talk about evidence in the documentary.
They have a knife that was brought into question and
mostly discussed in episode three. And the knife was given
not to the three Seawater children but a different person
and Arthur Lee Allen allegedly had it wrapped in plastic
I think. And they brought the knife to your good
friend more Susannah Ryan, and she did a test to

(45:17):
determine whether or not the knife had blood on it,
and it looked like according to her forensic test, it
had some type of blood. And then they sent the
knife for extensive DNA testing and we don't know the
results yet. The production team said they're waiting for the results.
I was not impressed with that at all, and me

(45:39):
is suggesting that perhaps they don't have the results that
either that or the results were negative and they didn't
want to admit it for the show. This is another
thing that's done time and time again with these Zodiac stories.
People claim that they've submitted their evidence, but then they've
already published their book, they've already released their.

Speaker 2 (45:57):
Documentary, exactly like in a newspaper when a newspaper has
a big, giant factual error that they get wrong. You
see that mistake on the front page in the lead story.
But when they fix it and they retract it, it's
all the way back, you know, a month later on
page thirteen in small print that nobody sees. So yeah,

(46:20):
it's sort of the same thing where you can leave
something out and make it you know, you're being truthful
that we did send this out. But if you don't
put an a dendum at the end saying, hey, by
the way, we got the results back last week and
they did not you know, it turned out not to
be blood. You don't really hear that part, but sure.

(46:41):
I mean, they make it sound interesting that Arthur Lee
Allen gives this knife, mystery knife to somebody and it
looks like it has blood on it. That just helps
sell the Arthur Lee Allen narrative. It just makes it
more mysterious. But later on, if they find out that
that was not blood, or they measured it and determined

(47:01):
it couldn't have been the knife that killed Cecily Shepherd
or caused her wounds, then it wouldn't be as influential.
It wouldn't be as important.

Speaker 3 (47:11):
That knife is the biggest red flag in the whole
documentary from what I've read. I know that Netflix are
a pretty wealthy company and this I don't know how
much they make per year, but I would imagine it's
in the tens of millions, if not more. And this
documentary must have been planned weeks or months in advance.

(47:34):
And so the idea that they are waiting for results
on a knife and they couldn't have done it before
the documentary started is a complete red flag to me.
It's a way of saying, hold on, there might be
a follow up, or hold on with waiting on the results,
and it leaves you in limbo on whether Arthur Lee

(47:57):
Allen is responsible for Lake BERRIESA. They could to easily
have this knife tested weeks if not months ago.

Speaker 2 (48:03):
And that's good. That's a good point, Richard, because and
you didn't see it, so you wouldn't know this, but
one of the seawater's brothers got sick and passed away,
and it was in the documentary. He looked like he
was very healthy, and later on at the very end
when they show him passing away, he was very sick.
So you could, right, so did they send that knife

(48:25):
off early in the process, because it seems like there
was a lot of time that went by from the
beginning of the documentary until they wrap it up and
then one brother passes away because he's sick. It seems
like that would been plenty of time to send a
knife out to get some some test results.

Speaker 3 (48:41):
Yeah, I'll delay the documentary for a week or two.
How long does it take to get DNA tested? A day?

Speaker 2 (48:47):
Yeah? I mean if they had a rush and they
wanted something done immediately, they could do it in a day.
I mean, it's not yeah, you know, that's that's the thing.

Speaker 3 (48:57):
I think that knife thing is just a complete room.
And it was a bit like I read about the
box that they never revealed anything about that at the end.

Speaker 2 (49:07):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (49:08):
And then yeah, I think that had documents that were
like it's supposedly the more physics, right, the correspondences between
Arthur Lee Allen and Phill the seawater. The mother.

Speaker 2 (49:18):
Yes, yeah, there was some kind of they make some
mystery around the mother, like she maybe knew more than
she let on. In fact, the kids hint that she
had an affair with orser Le Alan, right, Am I
correcting that? Ned because they said they said that she
would he slept over in her room, and the daughter

(49:41):
said he went in there at night and came up
the next morning. And to me, that means she was
basically saying they were in there having a you know,
having sex or something, that he at least slept in
her room, so they hint at at their being an affair.

Speaker 4 (49:57):
Hinting fair enough, Okay, I didn't hear any direct statement that, oh, yeah,
Arthur Lee Allen and my mother were having an affair.
But you know, in all fairness, I mean we shouldn't
use the word fairness. That would make a lot of
sense about why she's constantly defending him, even when he's
telling the story I have to confess I drugged you kids,
And they talked to the mother about that, and she's like, oh,

(50:17):
that's just mister Allen telling stories. He always did that stuff.
You know, that would make sense about why she would
be constantly in denial about something like that, and also
about why she has this man around her kids for
so long. I mean, that's really not a normal thing
to do with a family friend. But yeah, yeah, implication
fair enough, direct statement. I didn't hear that though.

Speaker 3 (50:39):
Yeah, yeah, I contacted you mistakenly. Mike, remember a week ago,
I thought you'd left a comment on my site, and
that's why I contacted you about Phillis Seawater and that
her maiden name was Hensley. And because you've got Connie
and you've got Hensley and you've got the Albany letter,

(51:00):
I thought that was quite interesting, even though not compelling.

Speaker 2 (51:04):
Well, and did you when you sent me that? I
hadn't watched the documentary yet, did you send me that
because it was in the documentary? Because they did mention
that in the documentary.

Speaker 3 (51:15):
That's why I sent it you. Okay, Okay, you know,
of course, I imagine the person in respect to the
Albany letter from the Albany Medical Center is probably a
real person, and there's no doubt that she wasn't working there,
so it's probably just coincidence rather than anything serious. But

(51:35):
I anyway, I'm getting off track now, so but that's
why I sent you that.

Speaker 2 (51:41):
Anyway, It is interesting that the documentary doesn't rely on
any canonical Zodiac crimes, but relies on two suspected possible
Zodiac cases and an Albany connection that may or may
not be Zodiac. The three that they really build the

(52:04):
the uh the documentary with.

Speaker 4 (52:08):
Yeah, it would be quite hard to push a narrative
involving Paul Stein. I mean, the zodiacs riding in Paul
Stein's taxi, And where would the seawaters be waiting for that?
You know, like I mean, are they just like waiting
around the corner on Jackson Street, Are they on Washington?
Are they on April or Cherry just waiting for mister
Allen to come pick them up. I mean, that'd be
a very hard one to incorporate into the story.

Speaker 2 (52:31):
Yeah, it would. It would be quite unbelievable.

Speaker 4 (52:34):
You know.

Speaker 2 (52:34):
Again to me, it's already unbelievable that they would be
with him on these dates and these places where possible
ZOVII at crimes happened. But although they did mention that
they had gone to a house someplace in that area
in the documentary. But you know, when you're a kid
and you say you're going to San Francisco and you
remember going there with Artur Luy Allen, do you really
remember what street you're on?

Speaker 4 (52:57):
No, you don't.

Speaker 2 (52:59):
Yeah, for them to remember going to a house in
San Francisco when they were kids with Alan, you know
a lot of people in to San Francisco. It doesn't,
you know, unless they specifically remember knowing the Robins kids
or something like that and they were at Washington and Cherry,
you know, that would be a lot more compelling. But

(53:20):
to me, at the end of the day, it just
it again. I believe the Seawaters. I believe they believe
what they're saying to be true. I don't think they're
just conning people. There are people out there that just
flat out in this case, they grift people. They know
what they're saying isn't true. They don't care. They're trying
to make money, They're trying to get fifteen minutes of fame.

(53:43):
There are people like that, we know that, But the Seawaters,
to me at least, don't seem like they're just out
there grifting, lying and made this all up. I think,
you know, as you've said a couple of times in
that I think they've come to believe, based on their
memories that these things may have happened on the dates
where these possible zodiac crimes happen.

Speaker 4 (54:09):
Okay though, but more if I want to come back
to something though about being genuine versus I'm not telling
the truth, and it relates to the DNA because a
lot of the reasons why I made those comments about
the DNA goes back to another person whose credibility has
come into question named Gary Stewart, who is the co
author of the Most Dangerous Animal of All pushing their
ow van Best narrative. And he was one of the

(54:30):
first people that I was exposed to when I began
my Zodiac Killer journey. And what they said about him
is the same story is what's going on with the
seawater documentary. He published a book called The Most Dangerous
Animal of All and then he said he's waiting for
his DNA results, and somebody called him out on national
television saying, whoa wait a second. You published the book

(54:51):
and now you're waiting for the DNA. That's irresponsible because
much as both of you have just said, you could
have obtained the DNA results first and furthermore, furthermore got
this whole narrative about how so and so was the
Zodiac Killer. But if the DNA comes back and he
wasn't the Zodiac that's a big strike against your suspect.
It appeared that that was clearly done for profit. And

(55:14):
I think we all know that Gary Stewart has been
accused of being a genuine fraud, and more or less
he was caught falsifying documents on national television. He would
be someone that I would category of being a genuine
liar at the very least about that falsifying Earl Van
Best's documents from a Tascadero State hospital which reportedly never

(55:37):
even existed. He printed some of it himself, and he
was caught during the FX documentary that might still be
available on Hulu. That would be an example of someone
who blatantly lied for all the reasons I think you
said more fifteen minutes of fame profit. He maybe started
out with genuine intentions but then realized no one's going

(55:58):
to listen to me unless I fuld the facts, and
that in the zodiac narrative that doesn't belong well.

Speaker 2 (56:04):
And the interesting thing in his case in particular was
he had an interesting story even if it wasn't Zodiac related.
What happened to him and his you know, his birth
parents is an interesting story all by itself. He didn't
have to connect Zodiac to it.

Speaker 4 (56:21):
Yeah, that stuff that was a solid book by itself,
and it's almost like, I mean, this is just guesswork
on my part, But I think that, you know, he
had this huge story about how his father was real
Van Best Junior, who was involved in a nationwide scandal
called the ice Cream Romance with a girl named Judith Chandler,
and they went on the run. They went around North America,

(56:41):
including going to Mexico, and the journalist and reporter that
covered the story was Paul Avery, the same one who
covered the Zodiac. So he's like trying to write this
book about his father, but maybe no one's listening, no
one wants to publish it. He's like, well, there's this
zodiac connection. Why don't we just make the zodiac connection
a little bit bigger and see if anybody buys the book?

Speaker 2 (57:02):
Now, Yeah, And I think that's I think there's always
a part of that when it comes to you know,
books or documentaries or things like that. There's always some
pieces that are uh, you know for publicity, for profit,
for whatever, because that's the name of the game after all.

(57:26):
So you know, to wrap things up, you know, what
is your your takeaway on this? Where would you rank it?
Maybe as far as uh other documentaries.

Speaker 3 (57:41):
Well, I can't comment because I've watched it.

Speaker 4 (57:44):
Okay, uh, well more to get some clarity, only Zodiac
documentaries or any type of true crime documentary.

Speaker 2 (57:54):
I'd say Zodia accents were you know, very Zodiac specific.

Speaker 4 (57:59):
Mm hmm. It gets mid level because it's kind of
like mid tier because it's well produced, it's well edited,
and you know, they got Robert Graysmith out of hiding,
even though his narrative didn't appear to complement everything that
the Seawaters was saying. It's almost like Graysmith is talking Zodiac.
The seawaters are talking their own personal experiences. But this

(58:21):
is not a bad documentary because of the following reason.
And multiple people wanted to tell me this after I
started talking about it online. They're like, Ned, you got
to understand, this was just a chance for these three
kids who are now you know, adults, and Davis passed away,
rest in peace. It's for these three people to tell
their side of the story. And I'm like, all right,
fair enough. You know, I'm not convinced of everything that

(58:42):
they're saying, but in terms of a storytelling documentary, it
gets lots of points for that. As far as everything
Zodiac related, it does not get a lot of points.
So I put it, you know, maybe five out of
ten fifty percent? What will we say? Two out of
four stars? That's where it stands for me. What do
you think more?

Speaker 2 (58:59):
Yeah, I be right there with you. I thought it
was well produced, well made. It was definitely something that
was to be put on Netflix. And if you put
a piece of garbage on Netflix, people are gonna, you know,
be outraged. So it was done well. I just again
I come away thinking these kids had experiences that they've

(59:21):
somehow tied to possible Zodiac crimes, and I just, you know,
the gout my gut feeling is that they were not
you know, they weren't in Santa Barbara on June fourth,
nineteen sixty three, or in Riverside on October thirty, nineteen
sixty six. That's that's what my guts tell me. But
you know, for my go to documentary is that this

(59:42):
is the Zodiac speaking. The Venture two thousand and seven
documentary is still one to me that just doesn't try
and push any suspects or theories. It just lays out
the case and the idea. And I always recommend if
you're going to check out a dot documentary, that's the
one that I always recommend people to.

Speaker 3 (01:00:04):
I think the primary objective of most documentaries is to
make money, and I think when that's your primary objective,
you want to sell a narrative or a slant rather
than be objective because it makes for better viewing.

Speaker 2 (01:00:20):
Well, because I do know some documentary filmmakers. Documentaries filmmakers
do not make a lot of money. That's a little
known thing that most documentary filmmakers do not make much money.
It's the netflixes that buy them from them that you know,
they're the ones that make the money. Whereas documentary films makers,

(01:00:44):
for the most part, they just want to tell a story.
They don't go into it with you know, they're on
shoestring budgets a lot of the time. Now, if it's
a documentary sanctioned by Netflix, if Netflix comes to a
filmmaker and says, hey, you're going to make us this
masterpiece and spare and no expense. You know, we're gonna
give you as much help as you need, that's a
little bit different. But most documentaries do they don't have

(01:01:09):
money in mind, because most of them don't make a
lot of money. But there's all kinds of all kinds
of different ones. Some good some bad.

Speaker 3 (01:01:24):
I suppose it depends how high profile the company is.

Speaker 2 (01:01:30):
Yeah, and then whether they have a budget and whether
they're Again, you know, if somebody is passionate about I
don't know, cactuses and they go out into the desert
and they make this documentary about cactuses in the life
of cactuses and stuff like that, probably not something that's
gonna make a lot of money. It's not something they're

(01:01:50):
gonna sell on Netflix. That's more of a passion project.
And that's what a lot of documentary film or filmmakers do,
or projects that are important to them and not for money.
But we know that there are some that are made
with profit in mine.

Speaker 4 (01:02:10):
Okay, what I was going to say is said, your
go to documentary was this is the Zodiac speaking from
two thousand and seven, Right, I would have to say
my go to documentary would be the Myth of the
Zodiac Killer that was done in two parts on Peacock
that came out in twenty twenty three. The reason why
is that has been out for over a year now
and it still has people in pure outrage. It still

(01:02:31):
has people up in arms, and it has made such
a big impact on certain individuals but you know, they're
just constantly generating new responses. I was even talking about
it on a recent episode of Zodiac Monday on black
Box Online Radio, because you know it done. It just
came up in the discussion. Sometimes you want to go
with the one that's going to set things on fire.

Speaker 2 (01:02:53):
Yeah, and that's you know, you get policity. You're talking
about it, then that means you're talking about that show,
and that means, oh, let me go back and see
what this conversation is about. Let me check this show
out they're talking about. So sometimes that that back and
forth and pushback on debate is good for the show
to get attention. My fear is that there starts becoming

(01:03:14):
a taste to where the case Breakers are now going
to get a documentary and we're going to have to
watch that on Netflix. And I rob use to watch that.
No matter what if they if they get a documentary
on Netflix, I will not be watching that. I can
assure you.

Speaker 3 (01:03:29):
That speaking about it, and when we might, what's that
won't we doing an episode of yet? Speaking on it now?

Speaker 2 (01:03:42):
Now, I not even to trash it, not even you know,
I wouldn't even do one just to trash the show.
I just would not watch it and would not even
help give it any life.

Speaker 4 (01:03:53):
But more, what I think is so weird about the
case Breakers is they don't really seem to find their
own suspect because they have a dB Cooper documentary that
was done about Robert Brackstraw as a dB Cooper suspect,
but he's been a suspect for decades in the dB
Cooper case. He wasn't an original discovery by the case Breakers. Moreover,

(01:04:13):
with the Zodiac Killer mystery, the case Breakers didn't find
Gary Francis Post as their Zodiac Killer suspect. You know,
there's that whole story about how Dale Julan was a
TV reporter who was contacted by a man named Chris
Avery who said, hey, you know, I mean, I want
to give you the story. I know who the Zodiac
Killer was. And the case Breakers took that story and

(01:04:34):
then they were the ones that publicized it. But they're
not the origin of this. Like Tom Colbert, who is
the leader of the case Breakers, isn't finding these things
on his own. He's like not doing the groundbreaking research,
if you understand me. He's taking somebody else and just
giving them a bigger platform. And I think that that's
really a bizarre way to go about it because he's

(01:04:56):
not necessarily helping their reputations.

Speaker 2 (01:05:00):
And I where I felt them is they're publicizing it.
They're doing all these giant press releases. You know, you know,
through a team of whatever amount of dozen people it is,
all have come to the conclusion that they've solved this
high profile case and that high profile case. And those
of us that know this case know they haven't solved

(01:05:21):
it to the But to the average person that's going
to watch it on their couch that doesn't know the case, well,
they might come on and say, oh my god, this
Case Breakers team solve the Zodiac case. So to me,
that's my fear is just when anybody gets carte blanche
to start making documentaries, you know, it's it's it can

(01:05:45):
be a slippery slope because then all of a sudden
you're just making stuff about every everything you can Zodiac
and then you're just it's like a free for all. So,
you know, at the very least, at least we can
say this documentary was well done and the people seem believable.
And that's my takeaway. So you know, as we wrap up,

(01:06:08):
let's remind people where can you guys be found? When
we start with you and need people want to check
you out?

Speaker 4 (01:06:14):
All right, thanks again, Morph. My name is ned Han,
also known as black Box Ned. I'm the host of
black Box Online Radio on YouTube as well as on Spotify,
Apple Podcast under the names black Box True Crime black
Box Podcast. I'm also on social media. I have a
black Box on my radio Facebook page, and on Instagram
and TikTok, I'm under the names black Box Ned eighty eight.

(01:06:36):
I use those to release shorts about the true crime
world every Monday through Friday. I guess yeah, you'd say
Monday through Friday during the business week and on the weekends.
I put out a set of fictional stories on YouTube.
I record the audiobooks for the White Horse Killer Saga.
It's something that I start in twenty twenty. It's a
set of fictional stories based on the Zodiac mensin connection,

(01:06:59):
but a lot of things have been modified. But anyway,
if anyone would like to check that out, I just
completed the fourth story, called the Eyes of the White Horse,
and there's a playlist on my channel black Box Online
Radio for the White Horse Killer Saga. The first story
was called Killer on a white Horse, and I guess
that's about it. Other than I'm a regular panelist on
Mysteries with mister Bilgiek and we do a couple of

(01:07:21):
different segments over there. We've done a few interviews, but
also segments about different true crime cases such as Jack
the Ripper, the Long Island serial Killer, the New Orleans
ax Man, and of course our regular panel discussion show
about the Zodiac and Morph. Thank you so much for
inviting me on to Zodiac Speaking.

Speaker 2 (01:07:39):
Awesome. Awesome, and Richard, remind people where they can find
your work.

Speaker 3 (01:07:43):
They can find me on Zodiaccipers dot com or they
can visit our Zodiac Speaking podcast and listen to the
thirty seven episodes we've done previously.

Speaker 2 (01:07:56):
Yeah, and we also, you know, I know you've been
on some different panels Richard as well, so people can
always go to YouTube and probably spot you on a
different panel. As far as myself, people can head over
to abjack Entertainment dot com. That's where I have all
my podcasts curated in that spot, and they can look

(01:08:18):
at not just Zodiac Speaking about any of the other
shows on there. I'm also on Twitter at true Crime Guy.
You know, my Zodiac killersite dot com forum is no longer,
but I still if you go to Zodiac killer dot net,
it will bring you to my main website. So you know,
if you've got that address, still plug it in and
you can still find me. I'd like to get back

(01:08:41):
to doing more conversations like this, whether it's on this
show or other shows. I like talking Zodiac, so I'm
gonna try and do that a little bit more and
just keep up with the case. And it's always fun
talking to guys like you and you know here in
your feedback and bouncing ideas off you. So thanks both

(01:09:03):
for coming back on and uh, we'll get this episode out.

Speaker 3 (01:09:07):
Yeah, I think the more spontaneous conversations are a little
bit more interesting, aren't they.

Speaker 2 (01:09:13):
Yeah, it's it's definitely a little different than what we've
done on the in the past on this show, whereas
we you know, sort of told a little of a
backstory about what we were talking about. But you know,
I like the idea of having different guests on like ned.
You know, hopefully in the future we'll have some other
guests on here and talk about some other different topics.

(01:09:33):
But it'd be good to get the show going and
just keep the Zodiac conversation going and uh, you know,
hopefully one day the case is solved and we'll really
had something to talk about.

Speaker 3 (01:09:43):
Fantastic sounds good.

Speaker 4 (01:09:45):
Thank you more, Thank you, Richard, Thank you both.

Speaker 6 (01:09:50):
Thanks for joining us for this episode of Zodiac Speaking.
Please make sure you're subscribed to the show wherever you're
listening now so you don't miss a single episode. Episodes
of Zodiac Speaking way or every other Saturday. If you
want to follow or interact with us on social media,
we'd love to hear from you. You can find Zodiac
Speaking on Twitter with the handle at podcast Zodiac, or

(01:10:13):
you can search Facebook for Zodiac Speaking podcast.

Speaker 3 (01:10:16):
And don't forget. You can get plenty of Zodiac details
twenty four to seven by visiting my site at Zodiac
sifers dot com or by going to Mike's site at
Zodiac Killer dot net.

Speaker 6 (01:10:30):
If you'd like to help more people find Zodiac Speaking,
please take a moment to rate the show and leave
a review of it on your favorite podcast player or app.
On behalf of rich This is Mike Morford and i'd
like to say thanks again for listening and we'll see
you on the next episode of Zodiac Speaking.