The questions from the public and Graysmith’s answers are listed below, accompanied by the relevent facts.
# 1 – Los Angeles, Calif.: As a prime suspect, why was Leigh Allen’s photo never shown in a line-up to the surviving July 4 victim (until decades later) or the lady with the baby whose car the Zodiac burned, or the witnesses at the party above the Stine crime scene, or the cops who stopped and released him near the Presidio after the Stine killing?
FACT CHECK: There is no credible evidence that Michael Mageau ever “vanished” or that police were unable to locate him. Mageau was contacted by police several times after the shooting and, on several occasions, he was asked to view photographs of various suspects (he identified none as the shooter). However, police did not believe that Mageau could accurately identify his attacker, for several reasons. Mageau himself admitted that he never got a good look at the shooter and had only seen the man briefly in a “profile view.” According to Mageau, the shooter approached the car carrying a bright light and Mageau was then shot in the jaw and other areas of his body. While recovering in the hospital, Mageau provided a description of his attacker which did not match Arthur Leigh Allen. Michael Mageau described the suspect at the Blue Rock Springs Park shooting as a “WMA, short, possible 5’8″, was real heavy set, beefy build… not blubbery fat, but real beefy, possibly 195 to 200 [lbs] or maybe even larger… short curly hair, light brown almost blond… with a large face.” Allen’s driver’s license, issued on October 13, 1967, described him as six feet tall, 250 lbs, with brown hair. On October 6, 1969, just months after the shooting at Blue Rock Springs Park, Allen was interviewed by a Vallejo detective who described the suspect as “6’1″, 241 (lbs), heavy build and is bald.” In short, Mageau’s description did not match Allen and his identification of Allen, despite these descrepencies, led many to question the accuracy of his identification. Retired Detective Bawart described the identification and stated that Mageau saw Allen’s photo and declared, “That’s him. That’s the man who shot me.” According to Bawart’s report for the Vallejo Police Department, Mageau was asked to assess the certainty of his identification of Allen on a scale of 1 to 10, and Mageau replied that his level of certainty was an 8. He also pointed to the picture of another man in the photo lineup and stated that the face of that individual was similar to the face of the Zodiac. While George Bawart and Vallejo Police Captain Roy Conway described Mageau’s identification as “positive,” the Vallejo Police Department did not consider the identification to be valid. This conclusion was based in large part on Mageau’s statements during his identification, his conflicting description and the fact that Mageau had admittedly seen the killer’s face only for an instant more than two decades before he identified Allen as the shooter.
Robert Graysmith: I certainly hope so. I think with the attention of the new movie, new evidence might be uncovered. I am satisfied that Dave Toschi, Bawart, Capt. Conway and Lt. Jim Husted of Vallejo PD were right and that the Zodiac was Arthur Leigh Allen. But there is obviously much more to the case and this is what David Fincher the director and his team of detectives in Hollywood have been working toward for three years. Even though their new findings are not in the movie Zodiac, they are preparing a time line and still interviewing witnesses and unearthing documents. I think the fact that Allen was at Lake Berryesssa the day of the stabbings (there were only about ten people that day including Zodiac) is compelling. He admitted to being there a hour before in letters and to his fellow workers at the Sonoma Auto Parts store. He was already a suspect in the other Zodiac crimes and to get himself up to that remote lake the same time as Zodiac has to be more than coincidence.
# 3 – Anonymous: The movie grabbed and held my attention for its (rather long) running length. SPOILER ALERT. However, I felt extremely unfulfilled at the end of the movie when the narrative revealed that the Zodiac killer was never found. In hindsight and with the benefit of DNA testing (which the movie did not deal with), who do you think the Zodiac killer was? The DNA evidence seems to have ruled out Leigh, one of the main suspects, does it not?
FACT CHECK: See FACT CHECK for the next question.
Robert Graysmith: Some DNA testing was done in 1988. Vallejo PD has just sent three letters to Sacramento for testing.
The Day Police Thought They Nailed the Zodiac. Graysmith claimed that, in February 1997, the SFPD had contacted him regarding the results of DNA testing on the envelope which had contained the suspected Zodiac forgery of April 1978. According to Graysmith, the initial tests had produced DNA which matched his suspect Arthur Leigh Allen; however, a second test did not match Allen. According to the SFPD, Graysmith’s claims are false and no DNA tests ever produced any results which matched Allen or any other suspect. Graysmith claimed that the Zodiac letters had been mishandled, exposed to the Sacramento summers, and were not refrigerated. Graysmith wrote, “Who knows what DNA was picked up during that time.” In Graysmith’s fantasy version of the facts, someone could have touched the letters and left their DNA on the paper, and this explained why later DNA testing did not match Allen. However, the DNA which was used to exclude Allen was obtained from an envelope, from underneath the stamp, and it is not likely that the DNA was transferred there by anyone handling the letters. Graysmith claimed that Allen asked friends to lick and seal his stamps and envelopes, stating that Allen would sometimes mail unsealed letters inside envelopes that he had sent to these friends. According to Graysmith’s scenario, Allen (as the Zodiac) wrote a Zodiac letter which was addressed to a local newspaper and written in Zodiac-like writing. Allen included a scrap of blood-soaked clothing taken from a Zodiac victim. He then placed the letter and the scrap into an unsealed envelope and then placed that envelope (and its contents) into another envelope which he sealed and addressed to a friend in the hopes that his friend would seal the envelope and lick the stamp but never look inside the envelope or ever question Allen’s need for his services as a substitute tongue. In his Post answer, Graysmith wrote, “Still even if the DNA rules out Allen, even though he knew the victims and was near or at the crime scenes, it still not rule him out.” During one interview, Graysmith admitted that no evidence would ever deter his belief that Allen was the Zodiac. Despite Graysmith’s repeated claims to the contrary, no credible evidence exists that Allen knew ANY of the Zodiac victims or that he was ever near or at any of the Zodiac crime scenes. The only evidence which could be cited to support such claims would be Michael Mageau’s highly questionable identification of Allen as the Zodiac shooter (an identification which was not endorsed by the Vallejo police department), and, Don Cheney’s claim that he had once accompanied Allen to the restaurant where a Zodiac victim worked as a waitress. Don Cheney made many false claims designed to falsely implicate Allen in the Zodiac crimes, and even detective George Bawart, who had previously endorsed Cheney as a credible witness, began to doubt Cheney’s story after he appeared in a documentary and made other strange claims.
Robert Graysmith: Bob Vaughn, though I have never used his name in print. Ken Narlow of Napa Sheriff’s Office considered him completely innocent.
# 6 – Seattle: How much of Avery’s spiral (that is, the drinking, the drugs, the loss of job) was a result of his own obsesession with the Zodiac? That is, do you think he would’ve (or already had?) developed the same addictions?
FACT CHECK: The film ZODIAC presented a distorted and largely fictionalized portrayal of Paul Avery. In the film, Avery’s boss takes him to task, citing the reporter’s kook-like letter to the Department of Justice on Chronicle letterhead, in which Avery asks to be appointed the head of the Zodiac investigation. In truth, Avery never wrote such a letter. In 1971, Avery did write a summary of the Zodiac case for Chief Robert Houghton which ended with the following pararagraph: “I feel privileged that you have asked me to assist in the coordinated investigation as a sort-of special investigator and consultant on media relations and I look forward to working you, Chief Houghton and the other investigators who may be assigned to the Zodiac Squad. I feel that by working together, using such assistance as can be provided by the best brains in the state (such as psychiatrists and criminologists) and such aids as computers, the Zodiac will be in custody in the near future. Respectfully, Paul Avery, Investigative Reporter, The San Francisco Chronicle.” The movie ZODIAC depicted Avery as dependent on an oxygen tank in the late 1970s, also indicating that he was unemployed and somehow retired. Paul Avery was healthy and gainfully employed in the late 1970s, and, he was still employed and in good health when interviewed for a television program in 1989. In fact, Avery did not require the use of oxygen until the late 1990s. Graysmith and the movie greatly exaggerated Avery’s problems and behavior in order to fuel the myth that the case somehow destroyed his career and life when, in fact, this was not true.
Robert Graysmith: My guess is that they are missing something in their genetic makeup. Some serial killers think that a conscience is something others have made up to make them feel inferior. They most certainly have crossed wiring in dealing with love and violence. They replace one with the other.
# 8 – Fairfax, Va.: How can you be so confident that you have the right killer? Do you ever worry that you’re slandering an innocent man posthumously, especially in light of recent DNA information?
FACT CHECK: Graysmith’s claims are once again untrue. After several Zodiac letters had arrived at the offices of The San Francisco Chronicle, the newspaper staff was instructed that touching the letters and envelopes could damage fingerprint evidence and they were asked to not to handle the letters. Graysmith’s ridiculous claim that “every” letter was handled by a photogengraver is nothing more than yet another attempt to cast doubt on evidence which has been used to clear his pet suspect. Once again, Graysmith is attempting to mislead readers by suggesting that handling the letters could somehow insert DNA and genetic material underneath the stamps and sealed areas of the envelopes. Graysmith states that the “best detectives” he knows consider Allen to be the main suspect. Dave Toschi, Bill Armstrong, George Bawart and others all behaved in ways which contradict Graysmith’s claims regarding their opinions on Allen. Toschi and Armstrong both stated, in public and in private interviews, that the fingerprint and handwriting evidence would identify the Zodiac long after both fingerprint and handwriting evidence had excluded Allen as a suspect. Graysmith’s response to the question about slandering Allen proves what many critics have said about him— namely, that he doesn’t see anything wrong in slandering and libeling Allen because Allen was a convicted child molester, as if Allen’s guilt regarding his crimes against children somehow excuses Graysmith when he not only exaggerates and distorts the evidence said to implicate Allen in the Zodiac crimes but even invents his own facts in order to do so. Graysmith states that his job was to “keep the case alive,” a euphemism for his crimes against the truth and his campaign to railroad Allen in the court of public opinion.
Robert Graysmith: David Fincher has hired handwriting experts and in their findings they looked at not the handwriting but the spaces between the letters, the misspellings and where the words were broken at odd places. These match the 150 receipe cards that the director found. It is an important clue, but also the great mystery of the Zodiac case. I worked with Sherwood Morrill and found him to be diligent. I though at first that Zodiac might be two men. This is why it is such a great mystery.
# 10 – Arlington, Va.: Why wasn’t the sister of the first woman murdered, who I believe you found in prison, shown a photographic lineup? She said she saw a man at her sister’s party wearing a suit and sitting in the corner of the room and she rememberd his name was “Leigh.”
FACT CHECK: Graysmith is once again distorting the facts and misleading the public. Allen first came to the attention of the San Francisco Police Department in the summer of 1971. Darlene’s sisters Pam and Linda first mentioned the party which allegedly took place in Darlene’s home in May 1969, the man in the suit, and the rest of this dubious tale when interviewed by police in 1977. The story of the painting party, the mysterious stranger who allegedly stalked Darlene Ferrin, and the majority of the stories told by Pam and Linda have been debunked and refuted by Darlene’s husband Dean and other members of their family. Graysmith has known these facts for many years, and he was aware that both Pam and Linda had a documented history of inventing tall tales when he cited both as reliable sources in his books Zodiac and Zodiac Unmasked. Graysmith has mentioned the “typewritten guest list” of the party for many years but no one has ever produced this alleged document and no one in law enforcement has ever confirmed its existence. If the list did exist, the evidence indicates that this list was produced years after Darlene’s murder. Several people allegedly named on that list, including Dean Ferrin’s brother, Arthur Leigh Allen’s brother Ron, and others have denied that they ever attended such a party. Dean Ferrin stated that no such party ever took place in his home and that he painted the house himself without the help of anyone else.
Robert Graysmith: I was with them from the first day, while writing the script, considering casting and trying to get the movie made. I photographed and made hundreds of hours of audio tapes of Fincher, screenwriter Jamie Vanderbilt and producer Brad Fischer as they attempted over nearly two years to get their film green lighted. I compiled this in a book called SHOOTING ZODIAC, which ends where most Hollywood books begin. I might publish this someday, but I have another book in progress. But in the process of building their film all three became crackerjack detectives, finding new evidence such as a map of Lake Berryessa showing paved and gravel roads in and out of the area, the site of the murder and signed Arthur Leigh Allen.
# 12 – Nashville, Tenn.: Don’t mean to betray my own ignornance, but if his notes said solving the cryptograms would reveal his name, has anything come up as far as a key if you try to solve backwards using known suspects’ names?
FACT CHECK: In his book Zodiac, Graysmith presented his proposed solution to the Zodiac’s unsolved 340 symbol cipher. Graysmith claims that experts endorsed his solution and the film ZODIAC depicts a television interview of Graysmith regarding his solution. In truth, FBI code experts and many others had concluded that Graysmith’s solution was not valid, as documented in the FBI files pertaining to the Zodiac investigation.
Robert Graysmith: Yes. Writing the letters and ciphers eventually became Zodiac’s true motive.
Robert Graysmith: Yes. Very seriously, as well as Anton LeVey’s Church of Satan.
The Zodiac/Manson ConspiraZ.
Robert Graysmith: I did like a scene I watched filmed in front of the Chronicle with Avery sleeping his car. It was funny and sarcastic and added much to Avery’s character. Downey did a fantastic job. I was in AUTOFOCUS, a movie starring Greg Kinnear about Hogan’s Heroes’ star Bob Crane made from my book, but that ended up on the cutting room floor. I would like that back, but as far as Zodiac goes, it was near perfect and I promise you exactly like being there.
# 16 – Reston, Va.: I recall that the movie says the fingerprints and DNA found at one or more crime scenes did not match that of Leigh Allen. Any thoughts?
FACT CHECK: Graysmith largely ignores this question because the facts strongly suggest that the fingerprints found on the cab did belong to the Zodiac and these prints do not belong to Graysmith’s suspect. Graysmith states that he is glad to have left the case behind but, at the same time, every word he utters proves that he has been consistently obsessed with the case, writing two books in less than 7 years.
Robert Graysmith: Not too many. It has been nearly 40 years. I can’t speak for the filmmakers who worked with the original officers and with the surviving victims and witnesses to make the best film possible. I waited until 1986 to publish my book Zodiac, about crimes in 1968-69, precisely for that reason. I waited until 2002 to do the follow up. None of us take this case lightly. I think the possibility that we might learn something new is important and outweighs the danger of an imitator. Long after I published my first book, we had Zodiac copycats in New York and Japan. The book was not widely available then so that was not why they became copycats. The visual and arcane aspects of the Zodiac appeal to a certain type of mind.
# 18 – The Stars: Hello Robert, One more question. You certainly became all consumed by this case. How do we know that YOU are not the Zodiac!?
FACT CHECK: Graysmith’s claims regarding Allen as a cartoonist have never been substantiated and he has never produced any drawings allegedly made by the suspect. Graysmith’s claims regarding the equipment necessary to produce the Zodiac’s code are simply his opinion posing as fact– the Zodiac did not require such equipment to produce the code, although he may have used such equipment to do so.
Robert Graysmith: God bless you. I saw how hard those guys worked on that film. I am still getting calls at midnight from them about documents and dates–I have boxes to the ceiling of my studio filling one entire wall two layers deep, and I say, ” Guys, the movie is done. You don’t need more files.” They have the bug. Fincher has 3100 pounds of photos, records and audio tapes, many of which I provided. I loaned them everything I had because I believed they were going to do it right.
Robert Graysmith: Yes. A young man named Leigh (who I did find down south) who knew Darlene and saw her with an older man. He also drove a white chevy 58-59. He looks nothing like Zodiac but I have never been able to shake the feeling that he knows more than he realizes. That is why it so important to keep the story alive.
# 21 – Bethesda, Md.: Are you done with this case now or might you do another book about it? Nevertheless, what are your future plans/projects?
# 22 – Baltimore, Md.: Mr. Graysmith, I read your book with great interest … this is the Zodia … ah. Just kidding. I was wondering why the sister of his victim was never shown a picture of Leigh? Wouldn’t that have cleared a few things up?
FACT CHECK: The man seen by several witnesses at Lake Berryessa was described as having a full head of dark brown hair. Investigators believed that this man was the same man seen by the boy, and his father, at the lake, indicating that they did not describe the man as bald. Graysmith has never produced any evidence to support his claim that the boy had identified Allen as the man he had seen at Lake Berryessa on the day of the Zodiac attack.
Robert Graysmith: Leigh Allen told my friend who went in to buy hardware from him before I came in eyeballed him that last day, that Ace Hardware printed his nametag as LEE because it would have cost more to have the name LEIGH sewn on his smock. His parole officer also told me the story. Check out Zodiac for the verbatim accounts.
Robert Graysmith: Melanie and hang around together all the time, laugh, go to art shows and attend the movies just to see the Zodiac trailer. My best friends in the whole world are my sons David, an accountant, Aaron (one of the five CI directors at a major studio whos credits include both Stuart Little films, Castaway and so on) and my daughter Margot who is also with a film studio in Hollywood.
Robert Graysmith: Zodiac as a film had to be of its time. Back then police departments were not sharing info. Det. Bawart told me that if they had a cell phone they would have had Zodiac. He said that the cipher killer would not have lasted ten minutes today. A task force would have been formed and the superior forensics would have ended his career before it began. A good example would be the calls to KGO-TV which could not be traced unless they had 15 minutes.
# 26 – So, you really went into the hardware store to see him? I loved that scene!
FACT CHECK: Graysmith wrote that his book “ended the reign of Zodiac.” The last known Zodiac crime occurred in 1969, and the last authenticated letter was sent in 1974. Graysmith’s book was published in 1986, meaning that his book had nothing to do with “ending” anything, let alone the reign of the Zodiac.
Robert Graysmith: Yes. It said Zodaic on label, but Bawart told me that it only showed Allen mooning the police. By the way David Fincher and his investigator, Max Daly, found a survivalist catalog taken from that basement that had pictures of a bomb disposal costume you could buy–a square black hood coming down over the chest. Bryan Hartnell, the survivor from Berryessa, did tell me the hood was very neatly sewn. Police also found articles about Mel Belli and the Zodiac case. They also found guns of every caliber and live pipe bombs, Zodiac did tell us that he had bombs in his basement.
# 28 – Washington, D.C.: What was Jake Gyllenhaal like? Did he talk to you much about him playing you in the movie? How inquisitve was he? Were you satisfied with his portrayal of you, of the other characters?
# 29 – Providence, R.I.: What about the physical disparity between the killer seen leaving the Stine cab and Leigh Allen? Was Leigh Allen “too tall and too bald” to be this killer? Did he ever wear glasses?
FACT CHECK: None of the many witnesses who reportedly saw the Zodiac had ever described the suspect as “balding.” Here are the descriptions provided by the various witnesses. No one saw the shooter on Lake Herman Road so no description exists. Surviving victim Michael Mageau described the suspect at the Blue Rock Springs Park shooting as a “WMA, short, possible 5’8′, was real heavy set, beefy build… not blubbery fat, but real beefy, possibly 195 to 200 [lbs] or maybe even larger… short curly hair, light brown almost blond… with a large face.” Surviving victim Bryan Hartnell stated that the attacker had brown hair and when asked to explain he said, “‘Cause I saw it from where the goggles fit… I looked so closely to find out. And when he turned you know they kind of flittered… I could see his hair. It looked kinda greasy.” Bryan told this author, “I remember when I was first talked to, I mean, I had the guy being a walrus, you know… He had one of those Sears-type of jackets, you know, those can be either lined or unlined, and if it’s lined, a person could be thin, if it’s unlined the person would be heavy… I mean, he’s not obese.” Witnesses at the Stine scene, including police officer Donald Fouke, provided this description: “White Male Adult, in his early forties, 5’8″, heavy build, reddish-blond ‘crew cut’ hair, wearing eyeglasses, dark brown trousers, dark (navy blue or black) ‘Parka’ jacket, dark shoes.” This description was subsequently adjusted for the SFPD composite sketch which published this description: WMA 35-45 years old, 5’8″ Reddish brown hair, Crewcut, Heavy Rim Glasses, Navy blue or black jacket. None of the witnesses ever described the Zodiac as Graysmith did: 6 feet tall, 230lbs, and balding. Graysmith’s description matches his suspect, Arthur Leigh Allen, and not the man seen by witnesses in the Zodiac case. Page 90 of Zodiac features a curious passage in which Graysmith described the evidence discovered in a cab where the Zodiac had shot and killed the driver. “Just under the dash, Toschi found a pair of dull-black leather gloves. They were soaked with blood but were too small for a man. Later he discovered that they belonged to a woman passenger from earlier in the day.” Photographs of evidence on display in the offices of the San Francisco Police Department appear to show these gloves stored in a plastic bag. A report prepared and distributed by the California Department of Justice stated that the gloves found in the cab were men’s gloves, size seven. Men’s gloves are sized using two different methods. One method measures the size of the hand in inches while the other method creates an estimate based on height and hand size. According to either method, a size seven glove is small or extra small. The gloves found in the cab were most likely too small to belong to the individual described by witnesses to the crime. In the updated edition of Zodiac Unmasked, Graysmith wrote that the gloves were important evidence belonging to the killer. His description of a scene from the film based on his book features this puzzling passage regarding the police search of a trailer owned by suspect Arthur Leigh Allen. “The trailer search continues as the inspectors find two windbreakers. “Hey, hey,” says Toschi, “black gloves. Size seven, same as we found in the cab. He’s got the same shoe size and glove size as Zodiac – I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.” If Toschi had determined, in 1969, that the gloves belonged to a woman passenger, as Graysmith wrote, he would have no reason to believe that the gloves belonged to the killer when searching Allen’s trailer in 1971. If Toschi knew that the size seven gloves were too small to belong to the killer or Allen, Toschi would not have any reason to say that Allen had the same gloves size as the Zodiac. Allen was more than six feet tall, weighed more than 200 pounds, and he had large, even massive hands. The size of the gloves indicates that the killer left the gloves behind to mislead investigators or that the gloves belonged to someone other than the killer and are not related to the crime. The discovery of the gloves is curiously absent from Graysmith’s other accounts of the trailer search in both Zodiac and Zodiac Unmasked, although such distortions regarding the gloves, the search and Allen do appear in the film adaptation.
Robert Graysmith: If you mean Mike, who turns up at the airport at the end, yes Zodiac ruined his life. Whereas, Bryan Hartnell, the stabbing victim, survived and prospered. He ended up representing Mike in court in one of those ironic path crossings of the only two surviving victims.
# 31 – Washington, D.C.: Where does “Zodiac” end and where does “Zodiac Unmasked” pick up?
FACT CHECK: In other interviews, Graysmith claimed that he and his editors had removed 500 pages from his first book; in his answer here, Graysmith raised that number to almost 900 pages. Graysmith claimed that he had “changed some dates and the names of the three suspects” in his first book. Here is an example of the manner in which Graysmith “changed” the facts in Zodiac. According to the police reports, the investigators and the family of Arthur Leigh Allen, police contacted Allen’s brother Ron and his sister-in-law Karen to inform them that Allen was a suspect in the Zodiac case. Ron and Allen were surprised to learn that Allen was a suspect, they explained that they had never suspected him, and neither believed that he could be the Zodiac. According to Graysmith’s version of events in Zodiac, the family suspected that Allen was the Zodiac, they held a family meeting to discuss what to do, and the family reported Allen to the police. While Graysmith did change “some dates” in his first book, more often that not he did so in order to make his suspect appear guilty. Allen’s father Ethan died in 1971, shortly before Allen became a suspect. In Zodiac, Graysmith used the pseudonym “Starr” when referring to Allen and wrote: “Starr’s father died just before the Riverside murder (1966). He passed on to his son a love of sailing. The Zodiac killing costume consisted of old-fashioned Navy clothes, pants with pleats. Was Starr, out of hatred or even love of his father, dressing up in his father’s clothes to do the killing?” Graysmith was clearly suggesting that the death of Allen’s father in 1966 had somehow inspired Allen to commit murder, despite the fact that Allen’s father had died in 1971– almost two years after the Zodiac’s last confirmed murder. Graysmith has repeatedly claimed that eyewitnesses had identified Allen. While surviving victim Michael Mageau had identified Allen as the man who shot him, police reports demonstrate that his identification was highly suspect, that Mageau also stated that the Zodiac had a face similar to another man shown in the photo-lineup, and that police did not believe his identification was valid. The evidence proves that none of the other witnesses had ever identified Allen (and Graysmith has never provived any evidence to support his claims that the boy witness or one of the girl witnesses at Berryessa had ever identified Allen). In his answer here, Graysmith stated: “David Fincher has carried the case forward by locating statements by the Washington and Stine witness and the officer who passed Zodiac who identified Allen as the man they saw.” Fincher never uncovered such statements. The witnesses at the Stine scene never identified Allen. Don Fouke, the SFPD officer who reportedly saw the Zodiac near the Stine scene, had repeatedly stated that Arthur Leigh Allen was not the man he saw that night, and, further, Allen did not match the description of Stine’s killer. Fouke never identified Allen. In his answer here, Graysmith once again created his own facts and evidence in order to make his suspect seem guilty.