I'll start with the good news first: it's a solid premise with some VERY interesting details. This story about an adopted man finding his birth-mother, and then trying to piece together his father's life is highly intriguing. Not just because he comes to the conclusion that his father very well could be the Zodiac serial killer, but the story in his hands is great - a proven predator, a kidnapping, under-age marriage, a baby left in an apartment building, various arrests, the escalating mood of fear of San Francisco in the late '60s -- this guy's got STORY! And the evidence towards proving his dad was a serial killer is interesting and solid though it is all circumstantial, so he has a case but it's not definitive.

The bad news? With this GREAT story premise and these interesting details, the book really falters because it's written as though it's a novel. As someone who went to school for journalism, reading this became a cringe-ing experience when he would, for example, write dialogue of a conversation that happened in the early '60s (before he was born) between his dead father he never knew and someone else he's never met. When he writes Zodiac murders as though his dad was there though there's no record proving so. He could have been there; why not just say that? But writing sentences about how his dad, named Van, saw a girl enter a library and then killed her after she left is so annoying and only used for added melodrama. The facts are chilling in and of themselves, no need to embellish. Quite disappointing and distracting as it became painful to finish.

Hoping, though, that the DNA test can come through at some point - I do hope Stewart's theory is proven correct. What a news story that would be.