Michael Connelly’s latest true crime podcast, “Killer in the Code,” draws intriguing connections between the infamous Black Dahlia murder and the Zodiac killings, based on a far-fetched tip from retired LAPD detective Rick Jackson. The podcast explores claims by self-proclaimed cold case consultant Alex Baber, who believes both cases are linked to a single perpetrator, Marvin Merrill, whose name he allegedly decoded from the Zodiac’s cryptic letter “Z13.”
The podcast presents this connection against a backdrop of historical attempts to identify suspects in these high-profile cases. In the past, suspects have been variously linked to the murders, including Janice Knowlton’s controversial claims about her father and Robert Graysmith’s assertions surrounding Arthur Leigh Allen. The difference with “Killer in the Code” is that it is produced by Connelly, a notable figure in crime fiction with a substantial following, and involves experienced professionals, including former detectives and a code breaker from the National Security Agency.
Baber asserts that a computer program he developed has cracked the Z13 cipher, revealing Merrill’s name. However, thus far in the podcast, evidence tying Merrill to the Zodiac murders remains elusive. While he had lived in Los Angeles during the time of the Black Dahlia’s murder, significant gaps exist in proving his presence in the Bay Area, where the Zodiac killings occurred. Connelly himself has acknowledged the challenges of placing Merrill in geographic proximity to the crimes.
One of the podcast’s significant portions centers on a sketch allegedly made by Merrill, titled “Elizabeth,” depicting a woman whose resemblance Baber claims ties back to Short. The narrative around this sketch—disguised as a significant piece of evidence—raises questions about validation and interpretation, particularly given the absence of additional corroborative data linking Merrill definitively to these murders.
Throughout the production, concerns about confirmation bias arise, especially as the primary narrative appears to hinge on unproven assertions. Connelly and his team have faced skepticism about their methods and have struggled to produce substantial, direct evidence supporting their conjectures. Notably, it has been reported that a relative close to Merrill feels the investigation’s implications have intruded upon the family’s privacy and peace.
As “Killer in the Code” progresses, it raises a critical question about the standards applied to true crime storytelling and the ramifications for those accused—even posthumously. While Connelly and his collaborators aim to uncover the truth, the podcast serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between sensational storytelling and the genuine lives affected by these historical crimes. Such complexities underline the importance of careful consideration when dealing with cases involving real victims and their families.