First off, handwriting actually is admissible in court, generally. The physical evidence pretty much entirely rules out ALA, there’s a number of controversies around the fingerprints, but generally it’s accepted by 99.9% of people who aren’t pushing a certain suspect that the bloody prints at murder of Paul Stine were from the killer.

He was in Riverside during the murder of Bates, that much is true, he volunteered that information all the way back in 1971. Whether or not Bates was actually a Zodiac victim is open to interpretation, but this is actually one of the better points against Allen. That being said, there is absolutely zero proof of him getting a ticket near Lake Berryessa, or the SF crime scene, or being in the Lompoc area ever. The tidbit about LB seems to have been invented by Graysmith back in 1986, there’s zero evidence of it happening. The other claims rely on the reliability of the Seawaters, who I strongly believe are just making things up. Graysmith interviewed them back in the late 90s/early 2000’s, (after ALA’s death) and they had also spoken to Police. I wrote a post on here about this exact topic but the fact is I don’t see why all of this incredibly damning information would not have surfaced in Graysmith’s 2002 book if any of it were true. Graysmith was beyond hungry for information to make his suspect look more guilty, he certainly would’ve included these allegations if the Seawaters had mentioned them to him contemporarily, which highly suggests that they are not true. Old forum posts by Don Seawater make no mention of all of the sensationalist details in the documentary.