Speaker 1: The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are solely
Speaker 1: those of the podcast author or individuals participating in the podcast,
Speaker 1: and do not necessarily represent those of iHeart Media, How
Speaker 1: Stuff Works, or its employees. When Michael Majeau was recovering
Speaker 1: in the hospital, there's evidence that he was shown photographs
Speaker 1: of several suspects, people who had been identified by police
Speaker 1: as potential suspects, but there was no solid evidence against them.
Speaker 1: Michael Majau was the sole survivor from the Blue Rock
Speaker 1: Springs attack on July four, nine sixty nine. He was
Speaker 1: shown photos of potential suspects the morning after the shooting.
Speaker 1: As far as we know, according to those police reports,
Speaker 1: he never identified any of those individuals at the time.
Speaker 1: Alan wasn't in the photo lineup because he wasn't a suspect.
Speaker 1: Decades later, in Michael Magee was shown a set of
Speaker 1: photographs by retired detective George Bauert from the Leo Police Department.
Speaker 1: One of the individuals in that photo lineup was Arthur
Speaker 1: Lee Allen. When shown this lineup, according to George Bowart,
Speaker 1: Michael Joe pointed to Arthur Lee Allen's photograph and said
Speaker 1: that's him that's the man who shot me. And George
Speaker 1: Bowart said, are you sure, and he said yes. It
Speaker 1: had been more than two decades since the Zodiac attacked Majeaux,
Speaker 1: and since that time, Robert Gray Smith's book had popularized
Speaker 1: the case against Arthur Lee Allen, which led to Allan's
Speaker 1: name and face being widely circulated. It made sense for
Speaker 1: Majo to pick Allen in the lineup, but that wasn't
Speaker 1: the end of Michael Majoe's statement in It's what happened
Speaker 1: next that changed Michael Butterfield's opinion. And then he pointed
Speaker 1: to the photograph of another individual in that lineup and
Speaker 1: said he had a face like him, and the Valo
Speaker 1: Police Department did not consider his identification to be valid.
Speaker 1: Arthur Lee Allen at the time in ninety nine did
Speaker 1: not match the description provided by Michael Michelle. And that's
Speaker 1: sort of when I woke up to that phenomenon that
Speaker 1: every time you're hearing about the Zodiac case, it's in
Speaker 1: the prism of someone's theory. It's not the facts, and
Speaker 1: they're tailoring those facts to suit their theory. It's also
Speaker 1: why Michael Butterfield began to doubt Gray Smith's account of events.
Speaker 1: There was a period of time where I was really
Speaker 1: impressed with that book and thought that was the whole story.
Speaker 1: And then over a short period of time, I started
Speaker 1: to realize there's a lot more to that story than
Speaker 1: that book. Butterfield doesn't think Arthur Lee Allen is the killer.
Speaker 1: And so over a period of years I realized that
Speaker 1: the story that you hear about the Zodiac case is
Speaker 1: not the real story. And as you examine the facts,
Speaker 1: that story starts to disintegrate, and behind it is this
Speaker 1: other story which is much more interesting. It's the true
Speaker 1: story of what happened, but that's not often what you
Speaker 1: hear in public. A man in a mask robbed, tied,
Speaker 1: and stabbed them, leaving them for dad. Subjects stated, I
Speaker 1: want to report a murder, no a double murder. I
Speaker 1: did it. A man who wore an evil style executioner's hood,
Speaker 1: carried a knife and gun and intended to use them.
Speaker 1: They haven't Arrestipe because they can't move it. I'm not
Speaker 1: damn Zodiac. Who is the Zodiac? And where is he?
Speaker 1: From my Heart Radio, How Stuff Works and Tenderfoot TV,
Speaker 1: this is Monster, the Zodiac Killer. It seemed as if
Speaker 1: the odds were stacked against Arthur Lee Allen. His home
Speaker 1: had been searched over multiple occasions, over decades of time.
Speaker 1: He had been harassed by investigators and reporters nearly his
Speaker 1: entire life. But almost all the evidence against Arthur Lee
Speaker 1: Allen was Circumstan Danchiel, the timing of the last letters,
Speaker 1: the odd items found inside his home, his zodiac watch.
Speaker 1: A lot of this was based on one book, Robert
Speaker 1: gray Smith's Zodiac, But many people began to notice issues
Speaker 1: in that book, including some people whose stories were in it.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of rumors around. Everybody said, oh, we
Speaker 1: paid cash for that house with drug money. Dean Farren
Speaker 1: is the former husband of Darlene Farren, the waitress killed
Speaker 1: at Blue Rock Springs. The gray Smith book suggests Darlene
Speaker 1: had extra money from selling drugs, which perpetuated the rumor
Speaker 1: that Dean and Darlene bought their house with that money.
Speaker 1: If they would have done any research, they could have
Speaker 1: seen that, Okay, there was a mortgage on it. It's
Speaker 1: pretty much public record who owns the house and where
Speaker 1: it came from. And that wasn't the only issue Dean
Speaker 1: had with the gray Smith book. Then the night of
Speaker 1: the shooting itself. He says that the Zodiac called the house, which, okay,
Speaker 1: that's probably true somebody did. But he says that from
Speaker 1: where he was he could look to the back window
Speaker 1: of the house and see who answered the phone. Well,
Speaker 1: that's impossible because it's like four blocks away and there's
Speaker 1: two big buildings with trees and everything around it, so
Speaker 1: you can tell he never came to town, and geographically
Speaker 1: it couldn't be done. And there's quite a few quotes
Speaker 1: in the book that I've never spoken to the man.
Speaker 1: When we spoke with the retired Valeo PD detective at rust,
Speaker 1: he was also skeptical of the gray Smith book, the
Speaker 1: book that was written about the Zodiac by Robert Graysmith. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I never was even contacted by that person. He never
Speaker 1: asked me about it or anything, so I I don't know.
Speaker 1: He has my name and some comments I made in
Speaker 1: his book, but I never spoke with the man, forgot
Speaker 1: with him or anything. The book was not the only
Speaker 1: source of stories that accused Arthur Lee Allen. There was
Speaker 1: also the testimony of Allen's former friend Don Cheney. Cheney's
Speaker 1: story heavily implicated Allan, but it's possible he had another motive.
Speaker 1: Remember the two men had a falling out because Alan
Speaker 1: allegedly tried to molest one of Cheney's children. Could this
Speaker 1: be enough motive to try and frame Allan? So by
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy one, when the police were investigating, he didn't
Speaker 1: have much to go on or to prove that any
Speaker 1: of his accusations were true. They just had to basically
Speaker 1: accept what he was saying and then go investigate Allan. Now,
Speaker 1: in subsequent years, a lot of people, including myself, who
Speaker 1: have gotten access to the police reports, I've interviewed Arthur
Speaker 1: Ly Allen's family. UM, I actually interviewed Don Cheney myself
Speaker 1: several times, and Don Cheney made statements to me which
Speaker 1: were demonstrably false. He embellished elements of his story, he
Speaker 1: added elements to his story, he changed elements of his story.
Speaker 1: He initially said that this conversation had taken place in
Speaker 1: December of nineteen sixty seven, but then he also claimed
Speaker 1: that our through Lee, Allen, had been talking about losing
Speaker 1: his job, a job that he didn't lose until March
Speaker 1: of nineteen eight. So obviously there was something wrong there.
Speaker 1: And as soon as Cheney realized that timing didn't match
Speaker 1: up with the facts, he changed the date of that conversation.
Speaker 1: The date was always crucial because he was claiming this
Speaker 1: occurred before the Zodiac murders began. But later on he
Speaker 1: started claiming that Arthur Lee Allen took him to the
Speaker 1: scene of the murders on Lake Cremin Road, that he
Speaker 1: talked about disabling women's cars by removing the lug nuts
Speaker 1: on their tires. Of course, an allusion to the Kathleen
Speaker 1: John's abduction. That doesn't match up with the Cheney's initial
Speaker 1: claim that he hadn't talked to Allen since they're falling
Speaker 1: out in nineteen sixty nine. Also, Cheney didn't add the
Speaker 1: detail about disabling cars until he spoke with police for
Speaker 1: the second time in nine years after Grace Smith's book
Speaker 1: came out. And what about the connection Cheney made between
Speaker 1: Arthur Lee Allen and Darlene Farren. Remember, Allen had supposedly
Speaker 1: told Cheney he had become friendly with Darlene at the
Speaker 1: restaurant where she worked, but Cheney didn't remember Darlene when
Speaker 1: he spoke to police in nineteen seventy one and nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety one. It wasn't until he spoke with gray Smith,
Speaker 1: not the police, that he made the connection. This was
Speaker 1: shortly before gray Smith's second book was published in two
Speaker 1: thousand two. The discrepancy in Don Cheney's timelines is the
Speaker 1: same with Arthur Lee Allen's watch. Cheney claimed Allen showed
Speaker 1: off his new watch on January one, nineteen sixty nine,
Speaker 1: but Allen's brother Ron said that's not true. Ron claimed
Speaker 1: their mother gave Allen that watch for Christmas in nineteen
Speaker 1: sixty seven, the year before. But Cheney originally didn't tell
Speaker 1: this to police. Again, it wasn't until years after the
Speaker 1: nineteen six Zodiac book was published that Cheney supposedly remembered
Speaker 1: this story. So there's some serious, serious problems with Cheney
Speaker 1: and his credibility, and he's the foundation for all of this.
Speaker 1: I was forced to conclude that Don Cheney was not truthful,
Speaker 1: and that wasn't because I don't like Allen as a suspect,
Speaker 1: or because I just didn't want to believe him, because
Speaker 1: that's what the facts indicate. That coupled with the accumulated
Speaker 1: effect of years of misinformation and propaganda, combined into this
Speaker 1: horrible situation for Arthur Lee Allen. Where now most people
Speaker 1: were convinced of his guilt, but the information used to
Speaker 1: convince them was usually not the truth. I've often thought
Speaker 1: about what must have happened when the book Zodiac came
Speaker 1: out and had said that Arthur Lee Allen's family believed
Speaker 1: that he was the Zodiac and had reported him to police.
Speaker 1: That was not true. Arthur Ly Allen's family never suspected
Speaker 1: that he was the Zodiac. They never reported him to police.
Speaker 1: But can you imagine the problems that created in his
Speaker 1: family If you think about something like Occam's Razor, was
Speaker 1: the most logical explanation that the explanation with the least
Speaker 1: unnecessary parts, Then the most likely explanation is that Arthur
Speaker 1: Lee Allen was not the Zodiac, and that the reason
Speaker 1: most people think he is the Zodiac is because of
Speaker 1: that book and then the film adaptation by David Fincher
Speaker 1: in two thousand seven, which also altered some facts to
Speaker 1: make Allen look more guilty than the facts would permit. So,
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, Arthur Lee Allen is
Speaker 1: probably the best known Zodiac suspect. He's probably someone that
Speaker 1: many people still believe is guilty, but the facts tell
Speaker 1: a very different story. One glaring irregularity in the case
Speaker 1: against Arthur Lee Allen was the witness description. Arthur Lee
Speaker 1: Allen worked on a hardware store in the Leo and
Speaker 1: I had been in that hardware store, and I believe
Speaker 1: that contact with him, and he he was about six
Speaker 1: ft five light, you know, a big, hefty guy and
Speaker 1: probably wade two hundred and fifty pounds or more, big
Speaker 1: big man, and I might I dismissed him mainly because
Speaker 1: of my interview with Michael Majoe where he described the
Speaker 1: suspect as about five eight or five nine standing next
Speaker 1: to that very low profile sports type vehicle that he
Speaker 1: was in when he was shot. In my mind, if
Speaker 1: Arthur Lee Allen, at six ft five two fifty plus
Speaker 1: pounds had walked up to that car, Michael Majoel would
Speaker 1: have said this guy was huge or something along that line,
Speaker 1: that he would described a very large man, tall, whatever
Speaker 1: like that. In his interview with me assistantly stuck to
Speaker 1: five a five nine, and the only thing fares being
Speaker 1: big and overweight would be the paunch from his belling.
Speaker 1: In my mind, that start any anything other than might
Speaker 1: what you call gut feeling. There's a cop that Michael
Speaker 1: Majol would have given an entirely different description. At the
Speaker 1: large man has walked up next to the car too,
Speaker 1: But if it's been Arthur Lee Allen, I think it
Speaker 1: would have been u much different physical description is at
Speaker 1: least in height and weight. Alan's height and weight weren't
Speaker 1: the only physical descriptions that didn't add up. Brian Hartnell,
Speaker 1: the survivor from Lake Berriessa, did say Alan could possibly
Speaker 1: be the Zodiac, but Hartnell also admits the zodiac size
Speaker 1: could have been dependent on whether or not the jacket
Speaker 1: he was wearing was lined or unlined. Hartnell said if
Speaker 1: the killer was wearing a lined jacket, he could have
Speaker 1: been a thin man. Again, Hartnell's description didn't match the
Speaker 1: six ft two hundred and fifty pound man that was Alan.
Speaker 1: But there's a third factor that stands out here. Hartnell said,
Speaker 1: when the Zodiac turned his head, he saw some of
Speaker 1: the man's hair and it was brown. Arthur Lee Allen
Speaker 1: was balding. But it wasn't only victims who said that
Speaker 1: Allan didn't match the zodiac's description. It's also interesting to
Speaker 1: note that Don Falk, the police officer who reportedly saw
Speaker 1: the Zodiac at the scene of the last known murder,
Speaker 1: said that Arthur Lee Allen didn't match the description of
Speaker 1: the man he saw. Don Falk described the Zodiac as
Speaker 1: a white male adult in his early forties, five ft eight,
Speaker 1: heavy billed, reddish, blonde, crew cut, and wearing glasses. Again,
Speaker 1: the description doesn't match Allan's height or weight, and in
Speaker 1: all three cases, not one witness mentioned the Zodiac as balding.
Speaker 1: Majau wasn't the only person in to be shown a
Speaker 1: photographic lineup. Kathleen John's, the woman who claims the Zodiac
Speaker 1: attempted to kidnap her, was all so shown photos of
Speaker 1: possible suspects, but John's didn't pick Allen, she chose someone else.
Speaker 1: The eyewitness accounts of the Zodiac didn't match Arthur Lee Allen,
Speaker 1: but there was another major factor that also didn't add
Speaker 1: up his handwriting. My name is Susan Morton. I am
Speaker 1: retired from the San Francisco Police Crime Laboratory, whereas served
Speaker 1: for some years as their forensic document examiner. A forensic
Speaker 1: document examiner uses scientific processes to study documents from crime scenes.
Speaker 1: Examiners not only compare handwriting, but they can also tell
Speaker 1: where the material came from, and if the document has
Speaker 1: been altered, I would usually start with the known writing.
Speaker 1: My method was to sketch it in my own effort,
Speaker 1: and that would make me pay attention to things like size.
Speaker 1: Gray shows like if you have a T H combination,
Speaker 1: which is a pretty common combination of letters, which one
Speaker 1: is taller, and you'll find that a writer is very
Speaker 1: consistent about these ratios. I will figure all of those
Speaker 1: out and get fixed in my mind not only how
Speaker 1: this person forms letters and the ratios and things like that,
Speaker 1: but how they vary. People are not machines, and they're
Speaker 1: never going to write exactly the same way twice, but
Speaker 1: they're going to vary within certain parameters. Susan worked at
Speaker 1: a Bay Area laboratory that had done most of the
Speaker 1: original work on the Zodiac case. At the time. The
Speaker 1: San Francisco Police Department used that lab because they didn't
Speaker 1: have a document examiner on staff. The first thing I
Speaker 1: would do is see if it was naturally written. When
Speaker 1: someone is attempting to copy someone else's signature, they're not
Speaker 1: actually right. They're drawing a picture. Drawing and writing are
Speaker 1: completely different acts from the writing that is copied. Looks
Speaker 1: very different from normal writing. I'm not going to be
Speaker 1: able to tell who did create debt, but I can
Speaker 1: determine that the person whose signature it supposedly is did
Speaker 1: not write it, because nobody forges their own signature like that.
Speaker 1: That's a very laborious process. Susan inherited the Zodiac case
Speaker 1: from the San Francisco Police Department. She became what she
Speaker 1: calls the custodian of the letters. Susan would do handwriting
Speaker 1: comparisons every time a new Zodiac suspect was offered up.
Speaker 1: The Zodiac letters were handprinted, and they were extremely fluently
Speaker 1: done very rapidly. When you're going fast, you don't have
Speaker 1: the ability to disguise your handwriting because you're going to
Speaker 1: do what your program tells you to do if you're
Speaker 1: going fast. And you can tell this by how the
Speaker 1: ends of the letters tail off into a little feathered
Speaker 1: because them flying finishes. So I knew that the body
Speaker 1: of that writing was the way that person wrote. This
Speaker 1: wasn't some disguise that had been devised. The writing had
Speaker 1: a right right hand slant, and the D was consistently
Speaker 1: more slanted than any of the other letters, and that's
Speaker 1: very unusual characteristic and that was consistent throughout all of
Speaker 1: the Zodiac's writing. I was of the opinion that it
Speaker 1: was the natural writing of that person. Natural handwriting is
Speaker 1: the way a person writes with their dominant hand. For example,
Speaker 1: if someone who was right handed tried to write with
Speaker 1: their left hand, that writing wouldn't be considered natural. Some
Speaker 1: people theorized Arthur Lee Allen was ambidextrous and he could
Speaker 1: have used his less dominant hand to help disguise his writing,
Speaker 1: but that wouldn't have worked because even if he used
Speaker 1: his other hand, it still would have been his natural handwriting.
Speaker 1: Susan doesn't believe Arthur Lee Allen disguised his handwriting based
Speaker 1: on her findings, and there were numerous consistent differences with
Speaker 1: the writing of Arthur ly Allen. I had copious amounts
Speaker 1: of his writing contemporaneous to the Zodiac letters. Remember they
Speaker 1: were written back in the sixties and early seventies. But
Speaker 1: I had writing of arthurly Allen's from back then, and
Speaker 1: it was writing that he did and what we call
Speaker 1: a normal course of business. It wasn't something he sat
Speaker 1: down and wrote to be used as a handwriting exemplar.
Speaker 1: It was application forms and things like that, so he
Speaker 1: was unaway or anybody would ever look at that when
Speaker 1: he wrote it, and there was just no match whatsoever.
Speaker 1: The lab also tried to develop fingerprints from the letters,
Speaker 1: but the only usable print developed was a palm print.
Speaker 1: It's called a writer's palm, the way a person's hand
Speaker 1: rests on a page when they write. So we were
Speaker 1: virtually certain that those prints did belong to the writer
Speaker 1: of the letters. And also I believe that they did
Speaker 1: do a comparison of his palm print to these writer's palms,
Speaker 1: and there were several of those of different letters, and
Speaker 1: they did not match his palm print. So I don't
Speaker 1: think he did not write the Zodiac letters. There was
Speaker 1: no indication and much indication that he didn't write it.
Speaker 1: Every investigation of him eventually cleared him, so it was
Speaker 1: not the Zodiac m h. When Arthur Lee Allen was
Speaker 1: first questioned in October of nineteen sixty nine, he thought
Speaker 1: it made him seem important for the first time. Maybe
Speaker 1: instead of being viewed as some pathetic child molester, now
Speaker 1: he was being viewed as one of the most brilliant
Speaker 1: master criminals in history. And it appears that he may
Speaker 1: have bragged about that and may have talked about that.
Speaker 1: At least Arthur Lee. Allen's family thought that at first
Speaker 1: he enjoyed that kind of attention, and then it backfired.
Speaker 1: It took a lot of my tapes, they took a
Speaker 1: samples of my handwriting, and then it became permanent, and
Speaker 1: it became a cloud as shadow that followed him for
Speaker 1: the rest of his life. I've never been known through
Speaker 1: good luck, and I guess this is pretty much living
Speaker 1: proof of it. I couldn't murder anyone, but if you
Speaker 1: put yourself in his shoes, most people wouldn't want to
Speaker 1: be accused of murder. And if they were going to
Speaker 1: be accused of murder, at least do it with the facts.
Speaker 1: Don't use fiction to accuse somebody. Two types of liars
Speaker 1: in the world fishermen and policeman, and not necessarily in
Speaker 1: that order. So it's got to be a really terrible
Speaker 1: place to be to know that there's a book out
Speaker 1: there that claims you're the Zodiac and people believe it.
Speaker 1: And while at first you might be tempted to play
Speaker 1: along and say, you know, yeah, well maybe I am
Speaker 1: the Zodiac or whatever, then it becomes a ball of
Speaker 1: chain that you cannot escape. I'm not the Zodiac killer.
Speaker 1: I know that. I know that deep my soul. And
Speaker 1: by the time they were searching Allen's home and he's
Speaker 1: being interviewed by the police and his name is all
Speaker 1: over the place, it was all over. At that point,
Speaker 1: he had no choice anymore, and he is now going
Speaker 1: to forever be known as the man that was most
Speaker 1: likely the Zodiac. I couldn't murder anyone. It's difficult as hell,
Speaker 1: and it can be ex it could be terribly depressing.
Speaker 1: And if I had deserved any of it, that would
Speaker 1: be something different, but I don't today. Ballejo police investigators
Speaker 1: said they never charged Allen because they couldn't explain discrepancies
Speaker 1: in the Zodiac's handwriting. Then you haven't arrested, maybe because
Speaker 1: they can't prove a pain. I'm not damn Zodiac, the
Speaker 1: Zodiac killer or victim of years at police harassment. Arthur
Speaker 1: Lee Allen took the answer to his grave. Arthur Lee
Speaker 1: Allen died from natural causes in August of Valio Police
Speaker 1: Department officials found him unresponsive on the floor in his basement.
Speaker 1: A polygraph agreement was resting in his printer. The Valeo
Speaker 1: police had been pushing for Alan to take another polygraph test,
Speaker 1: and it seemed he had decided to give in. At
Speaker 1: fifty eight years old, he was still fighting to prove
Speaker 1: his innocence. He was one of the most unluckiest people
Speaker 1: on the planet because it literally destroyed him. He ended
Speaker 1: up dying about a year after the first search of
Speaker 1: his home, and of course they might as well have
Speaker 1: carved onto his gravestone the man most people thought was
Speaker 1: the Zodiac. So what you're left with is a man
Speaker 1: who has been accused for almost fifty years on the
Speaker 1: basis of statements made by two very questionable witnesses. None
Speaker 1: of the evidence implicates them in the crimes. Every single
Speaker 1: time they find some evidence, whether it's fingerprints, handwriting, DNA
Speaker 1: palm prints, or eyewitness descriptions, it doesn't match Allen, and
Speaker 1: his accusers will tell you that's because he's a master
Speaker 1: criminal who was brilliant and could fake evidence and get
Speaker 1: away with it. One of those people who clung to
Speaker 1: the belief it was Arthur Lee Allen was Inspector Dave Toski.
Speaker 1: He was first brought onto the case during the cab
Speaker 1: driver murder in San Francisco, While Tski hunted for connections
Speaker 1: to prove alan was the Zodiac, others began to look elsewhere.
Speaker 1: In the late nineteen eighties, I began working for a
Speaker 1: company called Orchards Supply Hardware, and later I became a
Speaker 1: what's quota regional loss prevention est purity manager for the
Speaker 1: hardware stores. I belonged to a couple of different security
Speaker 1: associations and one of them, at a luncheon that I
Speaker 1: attended at one of the security organizations, they had a
Speaker 1: guest speaker who was going to do a presentation on
Speaker 1: the Zodiac Killer. And it turned up to be a
Speaker 1: man named Harvey Hines Hi n e s who was
Speaker 1: actually a police officer, but he had never never worked
Speaker 1: in any jurisdiction where any of the claimed Zodiac killings. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he gave a presentation and showed that he had identified
Speaker 1: a person named Larry Kine that he believed was the Zodiac.
Speaker 1: Next time on Monster the Zodiac Killer, and it was
Speaker 1: just so creepy again, just so freaked out. This woman
Speaker 1: is she just quit her job And Larry King was
Speaker 1: just a cree be odd char stories like that because
Speaker 1: he was part of the mom he may have turned
Speaker 1: somebody in and they put him into protection program. For
Speaker 1: the last nine years, the Zodiac investigation has been headed
Speaker 1: by homicide Inspector David Tusky. I had rulishel de fating
Speaker 1: that he was not dead and that he was out
Speaker 1: there somewhere and that he would communicate. There is no
Speaker 1: official police clamp on Inspectatoski talking with the media. That
Speaker 1: matter is entirely up to him. It went off like
Speaker 1: a flash. Oh my goodness, that definitely looks like Zodiac.
Speaker 1: So we want to just make some advancements, you know,
Speaker 1: and get something major. I think I've come up with
Speaker 1: something major. It's an interesting bit of information that nobody
Speaker 1: knew about before, and I think where fifty years into it,
Speaker 1: it's time to solve the case. Monster The Zodiac Killer
Speaker 1: is a fifteen episode podcast produced by I Heart Radio,
Speaker 1: How Stuff Works and Tenderfoot TV. Donald Albright and I
Speaker 1: are executive producers on behalf of Tenderfoot TV, alongside producers
Speaker 1: Meredith Stepman, Mason Lindsay, and Christina Dana. Jason Hope is
Speaker 1: executive producer on behalf of How Stuff Works, along with
Speaker 1: producers Trevor Young, Miranda Hawkins, ben Kybrick, and Josh Than
Speaker 1: Scott Benjamin provides additional voice talent. Matt Frederick is our host.
Speaker 1: Original music is by Makeup and Vanity Set. If you
Speaker 1: haven't already, make sure to check out the first season
Speaker 1: of Monster called Atlanta Monster, about the Atlanta child murders
Speaker 1: from the late seventies to the early eighties. Download the
Speaker 1: ten episode season right now. Have questions or comments, email
Speaker 1: us at Monster at how stuff works dot com, or
Speaker 1: you can call us at one eight three three eight
Speaker 1: five six six six seven. Thanks for listening.