Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

The Zodiac Killer ID'd? Zodiac Killer was 'my father' claims author

The Zodiac Killer is a case from the late '60s that has never been solved, but has plenty of suspects offered up by amateur sleuths in the last four decades. Gary L. Stewart claims to be the biological son of the man called the Zodiac Killer in his new best-selling book. The Zodiac killed four young women, a teenage boy and a cab driver between 1966 and 1969 in California and was never caught, according to Chron on May 30.

Is this the Zodiac Killer? Did a man's hunt for his biological father lead to the identity of the Zodiac Killer?

Stewart's new book, "The Most Dangerous Animal of All" is on New York's Best Seller list. While it gives some interesting and colorful windows into the era, the proof is less than air-tight that the author is the biological son of the notorious Zodiac Killer. There is a remarkable likeness to his father's picture and the police sketch, according to CBS News today.

The Zodiac's crimes went from Riverside to Vallejo and stopped once he was done killing in San Francisco. For the last 45 years people have been infatuated with this mystery as the man who called himself the Zodiac, taunted police with notes that he sent to the media.

The notes were like puzzles and detectives could never find this man. The killing stopped just as quickly as it began. Stewart believes that the Zodiac Killer was his father, Earl Van Best. He didn't know the man, he was abandoned as a baby in New Orleans and later found his birth mother.

His search for his birth father ended with Van Best, but the man was dead before Stewart made the discovery that this man was his father and the Zodiac killer. Chron suggests that Stewart's new book that chronicles his journey looking for his father is "short on proof," but still can't be counted out.

Van Best was a San Francisco rare book dealer and he resembles the sketch that was made of the Zodiac killer, which was dictated to an artist from the one survivor of the attacks. You can't just go by this sketch and while it is compelling, more evidence, such as DNA, is needed.

Stewart's father was 28 when he fell in love with a 14-year-old girl in San Francisco and ran away with her to New Orleans. Van Best broke up with his teenager bride and abandoned his newborn baby in a New Orlean's apartment house. That baby was Stewart. Van Best returned to San Francisco shortly after abandoning his son. This is known fact from Stewart's mother, but as far as Van Best killing people under the name of the Zodiac, there is no proof of this.

Van Best died in Mexico City in 1984. Stewart found his birth mother, who told him who his father was and he made the journey to find out what he could about the man. He was friends with Bobby Beausoleil, who was later convicted along with Charles Manson in the Manson murder case.

Another one of his father's friends was Anton LaVey, who was the founder of the Church of Satan. It appears that Stewart is able to show his father had questionable ethics when it came to choosing friends, but was he really the killer? Is a sketch looking like his father enough to go on as well as a less than stellar background?

Apparently all Stewart is asking for today is a DNA test to prove his father was the killer, but the San Francisco Police have had a lot of people come out out of the woodwork over the decades claiming to be a relative of the Zodiac Killer.

Stewart wants his own DNA compared to the known DNA of the Zodiac Killer, but that could open the flood gates for all the others who say the Zodiac killer is their father, uncle, brother, cousin and so on.

Maybe with Stewart's book getting so much public attention, someone will allow the DNA testing to offer proof to Stewart's theory or to put the assumption to bed once and for all until the next child of the Zodiac Killer comes forward.

Report this ad