Mass Murderers Books

An interesting read on how the law was used to keep a vicious predator in jail. Emotionally, I sided with the community and the state authories, however, the legal methods used to provide justice could easily be seen as railroading. While the crime committed by this young man was beyond brutal, and his guilt beyond doubt, given other circumstances an innocent person could be treated the same way and then it would be considered unjust and tragic. Chilling how a community and state were determined to protect others. This book is not about a typical juvenile killer.

As a fairly avid reader of true crime, I am used to the formula of "crime discovered - background of players - investigation/confession - court case - aftermath" so this was a different formula. The horrific, senseless slaughter of two women and a family by a kid barely in his teens is just the beginning as cop Ken Collins and his community mount a campaign to change the circumstances of how juvenile offenders are treated in Rhode Island. Released at age eighteen! Interesting is the side story of Collins' deterioration in his private life as he becomes consumed by his obsession to try and make it right for the memories of the victims. I also would have liked to have had a better sense of the victims themselves instead of the extensive description of the slayer and his life. The book is methodical and factual, not a "keep you up biting your nails and checking the locks" kind of read and occasionally becomes rather plodding at times. yet the story deserves to be told and I did finish it. I gave the book three stars, yet I give the town and the participants who worked toward keeping a killer behind bars a solid five.

I was very surprised to see this book in a local book store. To my knowledge it is the first, and only, book written about the tragic murders committed by Craig Price in Warwick, RI when he was in his early teens. Mr. Price brutally murdered two young women and two young girls for no apparent reason(s). This book describes the brutality or "overkill" inflicted by Mr. Price, but focuses primarily on the efforts of the Rhode Island legal system to keep him in prison past his 18th birthday, as he was a juvenile when he perpetrated these totally hideous murders. I found the book a bit slow moving even though I am very familiar with the Price case. It is not the type of book that grabs one and keeps one reading into the wee hours. At times it tends to drag, in fact. Was the system manipulated in order to keep Mr. Price imprisoned? Without question, in my mind. Was this justified? Again, without any doubts. Mr. Price is a textbook anti-social personality disorder. To my knowledge as a mental health professional with 20+ years experience in the field, there is no treatment or "rehabilitation" for people like Mr. Price. At least no empirical evidence to support such a claim. Mr. Price could be the "poster child" for supporting the death penalty -- certainly he should never, ever be paroled as it is a given that he will once again engage in violent behavior. He deserves life without any possibility whatsoever of parole. Ms. Lang does an admiral job of outlining the positions of both sides, but her writing style can become "boring". Nevertheless she is to be commended for writing about this serial murder case and how it has influenced other states to enact legislation regarding juveniles who committ such horrific crimes. Mr. Price is scheduled to come up for parole in 2005, I believe, although his sentence, based on subsequent convictions for other offenses "should" keep him behind bars until 2018, when he will be approximately 44 years old. A frightening and sobering thought, one that all Rhode Islanders must never, ever forget about.

First Murderer appears at the door
- stage direction from Macbeth, Act III, scene iv

ENTER A MURDERER, the second Alleyn book, is told in a style introduced in A MAN LAY DEAD but gradually abandoned over the course of the series - rather than alternating between the views of various principals in the case and members of the police team, it relies heavily on Nigel Bathgate, a personal friend of Alleyn's who is fascinated by investigation as long as it doesn't interfere with his personal loyalties. Bathgate is the vehicle for Alleyn's involvement in this case, in a tidy bit of business simultaneously illustrating both Bathgate's personal entanglements with the case and drawing Alleyn into it: having acquired two free tickets to a performance of "The Rat and the Beaver" while his girlfriend is away, Bathgate invites Alleyn, only to witness the murder of one of the actors when live ammunition is introduced to the final dramatic confrontation.

Unfortunately for Bathgate's amateur sleuthing, Felix Gardener, the friend who gave him the tickets, is the actor who pulled the trigger, so Bathgate's personal concerns over his friend's involvement lead him to nose into the investigation far more than his professional desire for a scoop. Bathgate, in fact, generally seems unprofessional in this story, as he allows Alleyn to censor his stories before publication and seems very leisurely in getting his copy turned in; his status with his paper is rather vague, since he jumps about from writing theatre reviews to covering a crime reporter's proper beat. Alleyn's permissive attitude toward bringing Bathgate along when he frankly has no business being involved doesn't ring true, and Alleyn's perennial involvement with the bread-and-butter work of the forensic specialists seems unnecessary - while he apparently respects the other members of his team, he doesn't seem content to let them do their jobs.

As for the victim, the police are spoiled for choice as to motive; Arthur Surbonadier (born Arthur Simes) was a good actor to whom the other two leads owed their start in the profession thanks to his connection with theatre magnate Jacob Saint (born Jacob Simes), but Surbonadier dabbled far too much in drink, amateur blackmail, and sexual harassment to leave a good impression on anyone, from the property master whose girl he'd interfered with to his fellow players, who resented what they saw as his use of personal pull to get better parts than he deserved.

I recommend the audio edition narrated by James Saxon - while it omits the foreword, which isn't necessary to the story (it's a mildly funny exchange between Alleyn and the author), it's well played. Like most of Marsh's stories, ENTER A MURDERER works best when performed. It's somewhat melodramatic - Bathgate's extensive appearances as viewpoint character and his personal involvement contribute heavily to that impression - and mostly of interest to readers who are pursuing the Alleyn stories as a whole. Marsh's later stories are better executed.

Drive-in totals:
- Two deaths (shooting, hanging).
- Multiple instances of blackmail, mixed up with criminal libel.
- Multiple love interests, among them the attactions the leading lady holds for Alleyn - Stephanie Vaughan [sic], who was involved to some degree with both Surbonadier and Gardener.
- Drugs (both involvement in pushing and in drug-taking), though drinking more than drugs affects the characters' visible behaviour.

Nagaio Marsh's Enter A Murderer appears unabridged, with James Saxon narrating the story of a theater murder and an actor. It's up to Inspector Roderick Alleyn to sort out whodunit. The narration brings the story to life, with all its strengths.

While I enjoyed _Enter a Murderer_, I found the plot a bit similar to _Death at the Bar_. If I hadn't first read _Death at the Bar_ this wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, as both plots are rather clever - it's just unfortunate that they're clever in the same way. I also didn't like Inspector Alleyn as much in this book - granted he was investigating a murder that takes place amongst theatrical people, but still, he came off as a bit overdone at times. At any rate, _Enter a Murderer_ was quite entertaining - Marsh definitely starts to plumb the depths in terms of a murderer's psychology, and the whole set up, with the murder taking place on stage in full-view of an audience (talk about witnesses!) was a really neat idea.

Conradi's book is not too bad. My biggest problem with it is that it is subtitled "Russia's monster serial killer and the men who stopped him." This is somewhat misleading, as there is very little about the policemen and the detectives who stopped him.

On the positive end though, one will find few books anywhere that spend so much time discussing the mindset of a killer in such detail. Conradi does a masterful job recreating the horrific crimes. And even though the psychiatric interview at the end is extremely tedious in the first couple of pages, the summary is well worth the time.

Bizzare on both ends, the killer as well as the cops. If you like serial killer books this is unbelieveable!

What makes Chikatilo fascinating is that it took so long for him to be caught, and the reasons for this delay. He was incredibly lucky, in some ways, but the structure of laws, customs and means of communication in the Russia of the time are the real reasons for his long career as a killer. Conradi explains all of this clearly. What is not so clear are the details of how all of the info he presents was acquired. Did the author have access to confession documents, or interrogation documents? If so, the readers would sure like to see them included in the book. Overall, a very readable, informative book.

I can't recommend this book. It was so boring that I put it down before I was halfway through it.
Scruffysmom

ER Nurse Ashlee Davenport Chadwick either makes or finds a home on her family farm for retired K-9 dogs. Currently besides her college student daughter Jas, Big Dog, Cheeks, and Cherry live with her. They bring to her a smelly child's red sneaker, which she is about to toss in a game of fetch only she knows the odor reeks of "old death". She looks inside and sees tissue. Although she knows it is dumb, she labels and protects the "evidence" as she has learned in her forensic courses. Hesitant as she does not want her peers at Dawkins County Rescue Squad nicknaming her, she still calls the Sheriff's Department. Afterward Cheeks, an experienced tracker dog, takes her to the sight where she finds a toe.

Over the objection of the locals, Ashlee's boyfriend, FBI Violent Crime Squad Coordinator Jim Ramsey of the nearby Columbia office, leads the investigation. He is already looking into a serial killer whose victims are young girls, which probably means Cheeks' find fits his case. Soon they discover several young buried on or just off Chadwick land; making the family including Ashlee the prime suspect.

SLEEP SOFTLY is a tense exciting police procedural that readers will devour in one sitting. The story line is fast-paced especially when the culprit targets the heroine. The romance is kept somewhat on the back burner so that subplot does not intrude on an engaging whodunit. Mostly told from Ashlee's perspective, sub-genre readers will enjoy this suspenseful thriller.

Harriet Klausner

Just what you've come to expect from Hunter--fun and thrills with a bit of medical stuff thrown in for good measure.

More tales of crime and punishment from the files of Court TV's CRIME STORY. This volume contains 3 horrific cases inculding one that features the twisted deeds of co-ed killer, Danny Rollins -- the real-life monster who liked to dismember young women and arrange the corpses to taunt law enforcement.

I love to read about true crime, but there is so much information given on the back cover that there is no "surprise" once you read about the trials. I think that the stories inside the book would have been more interesting to read had the cover not given so much information.

I found Ablow's writing of this book informative and extremely educational. I have read many of his books of fiction, but, between this one and the one I read of his that shared quite a bit of his notes on his first years of psychiatric medicine I realize the author's vast knowledge and ability to 'educate'.

It gives a true account of who Scott Peterson really is. It helps to understand a person like Scott Peterson

The first book I read by Keith Ablow was Psychopath- and I couldn't put it down. As I read this book on Scott Peterson-so many questions were answered. Dr. Ablow gives examples, and explains in full detail from birth to prison how Scott Peterson became the person he was.

As a psychologist there were so many questions I had about Peterson's past life with his family- now I know about his controlling, manipulative mother, his spineless dad. Amazing.

A must read.

I have read all the books out on the Peterson case as well as having paid close attention to the news at it unfolded on national TV. I realize Keith Ablow, M.D. is an expert and very respected so I weigh my words carefully as I am simply a lay person, a medical transcriptionist for fifteen years who has typed a lot of psychiatric histories and have read true crime for years now. I do believe Dr. Ablow is on the mark with the family history and how Scott Peterson got to the point of looking like a solid human being but in actuality being as empty and void as a hollow chocolate Easter rabbit. Appearances of deception. I agree, this is a must read for anyone who followed the case. I think my mixed feelings come from the way Dr. Ablow presented his thoughts...I am at a loss quite honestly as to how to explain what I mean...I am believing other avid readers will understand after reading the book why it is difficult for me to explain. I think some of the way he presented his thoughts/findings/beliefs were odd. Again, I'm sorry I can't be more specific. Dr. Ablow talked numerous times about the pasted on SMILE, the plastic smile of Scott Peterson. What is strange here is the fact that just prior to reading Dr. Ablow's book I read the book by Laci's mother - and the cover has Laci and her mother on it smiling the same extremely wide...EXTREMELY WIDE...what I call "plastic, beauty pagent" type of smile that hurts my face muscles just looking at the picture. Every photograph of Laci has the same smile and her mother speaks in the book of her daughter ALWAYS SMILING. No one smiles ALL THE TIME, and if they do, there's something going on not being addressed. My heart aches for Laci, Connor and her family - please know I am not speaking of this for deliberate negativity, and Lord knows no one on earth deserves what she went through / what her family is going through every day of the remainder of their lives. I am only trying to understand why Dr. Ablow doesn't make a connection with Laci / smile - perpetual - as he does with Scott - smile - perpetual yet a sign of "hallowness and nonperson".
I beieve Scott Peterson definitely is insane. I believe Laci had many, many of her own issues - like so many of us do - and sad to say, her own personality and smile masked to her family - to the world perhaps - much of the reality that was going on in her own life. So often it is said "If it looks too good to be true, then for sure it is."
Like Laci's mom said - there always is divorce...then again, fairy tales do not end in divorce. They should not end in murder, either. I strongly urge anyone interested in this case to read Dr. Ablow's book, make your own judgment and please know I submitted my review with a genuine effort to express how the book left me feeling.

Your parents can certainly screw you up, and there is good reason to think Scott Peterson's parents did. But must the author take so many pages to say so? The discussion of the various generational dysfunctions was interesting, but really one can draw one's own conclusions. The author is so in love with his own theories and catch phrases that he repeats them over and over and over and over - Scott was dead, dead, dead, birth equals death, he's dead inside, okay we get it already. Despite the fact that lawyers are always saying it's not necessary to prove motive, motive IS one of the most interesting parts of murders. The author does come up with a plausible theory, but it seems to be drawn from other books and articles, and not one scrap of direct dialog with anyone involved. Also the style is annoyingly melodramatic. Of course there are theories that Scott didn't even do it - one of his lawyers wrote a book about how it was a probably a satanic cult supposedly operating in the area at the time. I guess this theory is no less possible than that one, but it was a lot more redundant and I would rather not have read the part where Scott "moans like a girl" during sex. Ew.

Not as well written as Bugliosi's "Helter Skelter", but pretty good read all the same.
Bugs theory of Helter Skelter motive is dubious at best and refuted by some.
When it comes down to motive Sanders book makes a lot more sense.
After all, he came in direct contact with some of the people connected to the Family.
He doesn't produce any sources for his info, but that is understandable
as he may have been scared for his life, or told not to by those who were scared for theirs.

A perfect companion to Vincent Bugliosi's "Helter Skelter", "The Family" was written by Ed Sanders, one time member of the "counter culture" 60's act The Fugs. Like Bugliosi, Sanders had first hand contact with The Manson Family in the late 60's/early 70's, however unlike Bugliosi he was not a straight prosecutor but (admittedly) a member of "the underground press" and a dyed in the wool hippie. Sanders occasionally deviates through some wacky borderline conspiracy theories, though always leaving you to draw your own conclusions. The fact that he took numerous trips out to the desert to mix with the Family while writing this book is akin to frontline tours of duty as a war correspondent and adds to the realism as he breaks bread with Manson's murder zombies. I've read this book five times over the past three years and each time its as chilling as the first when you realize that an ex-con hijacked the peace and love generation by collecting damaged youth and utilizing his control skills learned as a former pimp which combined with liberal doses of hallucinogenic drugs helped him create his morbid dream world of racial unrest, murder and mayhem, that was quite possibly just a mask for a personal, money and drug fueled related agenda.

So far, I've read 300 + pages out of the 500+ pages and it is very detailed! It is very informative!

A book doesn't have to be accurate, ethical and truthful to be "good". That's where I find a lot of disagreement on these reviews. I don't have to believe that UFO's built the great pyramids to have fun reading that perspective; I don't have to believe Jack the Ripper was really Walter Sickert to to have run reading the "proof". But, so many on here seem to give bad reviews based on their indignation at the truthfulness (or lack thereof) in a given book. Ed Sanders is a smart-aleck who evaluates the Manson Family as "Okies". He implies they videotaped murders. He claims they were affiliated with various satanic and occult groups. He claims certain Hollywood bigshots new Manson a lot better than they acknowledge. And blah blah blah. He can't really prove any of it, but for me, so what? I have to admit, this book is a lot of fun to read. I'd say, give it a try

This is one of the most poorly written books I have ever picked up. The author purports to be a poet, which, if true, is tragic indeed.
The very first paragraph of the book has a hanging sentence, "There was." Is this some poet's idea of an ontological statement? Or just sheer sloppiness?
On page 9, we are treated to the sentence, "Of irony,[how about 'ironically'? it's a perfectly good word here.] Manson seems [seems? It's pretty well documented that he did.] to have become a protege in prison of probibition gangster Alvin Karpis, a member of the evil [Wow; labelling something in a book on Manson has to be done in soemwhat relative terms; but I am glad that he let us know who the bad guys were here!] Ma Barker gang, which left fourteen victims dead."
Let's go to page 53, where we read that "Rosemary's Baby, a saga of satanic chauvinism, is a story about the big-league affluent hail-Satan [that's a mouthful] crowd and their evident [Again, isn't the qualifier here a bit too cute?] success in getting Satan to make pregnant [I think the proper verb is "impregnate."] an innocent {is there any other kind?] female victim, played by Mia Farrow."
Later, we read that "She stayed with the film; Sinatra left her, and so another headline sequential monogamy entered the dust." Good god.
I hope you get the picture. This fellow needed a good editor and a decent English teacher in high school.
I am sure that this book contains stuff not found in other Manson books. It is a laudatory effort for this, and this alone. It's quite a lengthy book. But trying to read it is, for anyone with other than a tin ear, an impossible task, unless one has at hand a bottle of decent Scotch, some nice music, and a wicked sense of humor.

I can't even beging to get into how horrible this book was. It jumps all over the place, doen't make any damn sense and she is THE WORST WRITER IN THE HISTORY OF WRITING.

I also can't get past the first few chapters. This book sounds like the author's notes published in stream-of-consciousness. There's no real order to it. It doesn't appear to have been edited, either. If this were the first true-crime book I read, I'd never read another. My problem is that I didn't read the reviews first. This book is going in the trash.

This book about the Steven Beard killing was very difficult to follow, and jumps around frequently so you are never sure if you are reading stuff that happened before the murder or after the murder. The pictures in the middle are interesting, and not in the far superior book on the case All She Wanted by Katherine Casey so that is why I am giving it 2 stars instead of 1.

I shouldn't be writing a review of a book I didn't even finish. I could barely get myself to read more than two chapters..such a hard book to follow and I read alot of true crime! Instead of saying "Couldn't put it down", it's more like, "Couldn't wait to put it down"

Very confusing. The Author does not write in chronological order. The first page starts off about the victim's dogs!! Then back and forth between the shooting and the trial. Nothing much about the backgrounds of the victim & the people involved in the case - just a few sentences. It's hard to keep up with who's who and how they know the victim and his wife who was convicted of having her husband murdered by her lesbian lover. I recommend that if you want to read about this case then buy "She Wanted it all" by Kathryn Casey - she is a great writer and gets to the point - not going on about dogs and the weather. I really don't know how Suzy Spencer got her book published - its just too disorganised.

I'm disappointed to find these reviews only AFTER buying this book. I only bought the book because I was interested to read about one particular case - that of Vera Renczi (pp. 67-70), about which I had heard on a TV documentary that referenced 'Murder Most Rare' as source. I was confused on hearing in the TV documentary that Vera Renczi was born in Bucharest, Hungary, so I wanted to buy this book to see what it said about her actual origin. Her name sounds completely Hungarian, so I would have been persuaded that she was of Hungarian origin - however, the book (like the TV documentary citing it, and on which Michael Kelleher actually appeared) also says that Vera Renczi was born in Bucharest, but that she is Hungarian. The fact that this detail is not explained (I feel I don't really NEED to say that Bucharest is actually the capital of ROMANIA, while BUDAPEST is the capital of Hungary..... and even in 1903, when Vera Renczi was supposedly born, Bucharest was the capital of Romania, and only Transylvania was still a part of Hungary...) makes me think that the authors of 'Murder Most Rare' have no knowledge of European geography whatsoever. Very sad that they further the horrible stereotypes about Americans who haven't got the least interest in anything that lies beyond their own borders....
Very disappointed with the quality of research of a book that claims to be 'ground-breaking'!!!
:((((

I completely agree that this book reads like a badly written term-paper AND that the authors are horribly erroneous (and actually contradict themselves) on more than one occasion in the book.

Just in the introduction and first chapter, we find this:
Introduction, xi: "Rather, the crime of serial murder encompasses a broad range of violent activities, from the infamous exploits of the gunslinger of the old West to the unspeakable crimes of Nazi leadership, who perpetrated the Holocaust earlier this century,"

And yet, in another attempt to define serial murder in chapter one, page 5-7, the authors state: "The missing element is the cooling-off period, which always constitutes a recognizable component in a genuine pattern of serial murder."

They have just made the outrageous statement that genocide is, in fact, serial murder, and then in the first chapter, completely changed their own definition of serial murder in such a way that would exclude the Nazi party they so hastily lumped in earlier. They go on to shove their figurative foot farther into their literary mouths by stating, "Whereas the crime of mass murder implies the slaying of a number of victims in a single event," thereby effectively telling us in one breath that the Nazis were all serial murderers (or perhaps only Hitler was? They weren't very clear), and in the next telling us that no, they were not in fact serial murderers, but guilty of mass murder.

On page two, we find this gem: "In the contemporary understanding of the term, serial killing is often considered to be the act of narrowly defined individuals who undertake crimes that are heinous, but also narrowly defined."

The act of narrowly defined individuals? Can we even parse that?

I was tired of reading the word "whereas" by page six.

Complete rubbish, the entire book.

Where was the editor before this book went to print?!

I was also terribly disappointed to learn that notorious serial murderess Patty Cannon is not mentioned anywhere in the book.

Blah.

"Murder Most Rare: The Female Serial Killer" by Michael D. & C.L. Kelleher, Dell Publ., 1999, ISBN: 0-440-23473-5 is a 304 page softcover pocket book having 3 appendices, bibliography & index.

Authors have provided excellent compilation of 88 known female serial killers (FSK) of the 21st. century, contrasts them with male serial killers (MSK), divides them into 9 classes based on motive (Black Widow, Angel of Death, Sexual Predator, Revenge, Profit, Team Killer, ? Sanity, Unexplained & Unsolved), and provides a uniform summary chart for each FSK (includes birth information, age of activity, victim information including methods, motives & case disposition).

The book has a wealth of information, useful statistical data on frequency of FSK subclasses and primary weapons (guns, poison, lethal injection, suffocation, etc.) and 5 pages on the novel Munchausen sydrome by proxy (MSBP) and an alphabetical listing of FSK. We are informed that the most rare (1 case!) of "Murder Most Rare" FSK in America is the Sexual FSK (Eileen "Lee" Wuornos).

The book is an easy-to-read relatively non-technical discourse on FSK. The only grammatical gaffe is the serial confounding (and disconcerting) use of the word "systemically" for the intended "systematically." The pleonasm, verbal effusion and prolixity sets it apart from most technical manuals, but this is patenly something the authors may have done for a perceived or needed additional emphasis (or clarification) and may be relished by many readers.

For anyone interested in criminal profiling (FSK or not), this book is a must have and must read, and at a bargain. I wished I had gotten the hard cover edition.

This book turned out to be a major let down from what you are led to believe you will actually read about. If you're into calculations and ratios between male serial killers and female serial killers, then this book would be it. Not much about the actual women but alot of brief details about them.
Very much a let down, requires you to skim alot just to get a few actual stories.

This book really doesnt go in depth into any of the cases, just gives a brief summation and rating as to the profile of the killers. I want something with more grit and substance. If you are merely into skimming the subject, then this is the book for you.

The authors of this book have researched this book very thoroughly, and their style of writing is excellent. They compare and contrast the views of both the main characters that leave the reader wanting to learn more. This is a page-turner book in which you don't want to put down until it's finished.

This was a very sad book, you got the view of the family of the criminal in this book, how they feel about the crime of their son. It's very sad and odd, why Danny Starrett had become like that when he had a loving family??? When his mother talked about how he was when he was a kid and we see his baby and kid picutures you think how a little boy who look so nice and sweet can become like that? It's was very well wrote and a very powerful book.

I am an avid reader of true crime, but this is the worst specimen of such that I have ever seen. This book focuses not so much on the crimes committed but how this serial kidnapper & rapist, once murderer, was treated so poorly behind bars. And the second story of this book focuses on how his mother worked dilligently to right those wrongs. The kidnapped, raped and murdered victims are but backdrops to this 400 page whine about the injustices suffered by the accused. This is the first work I have read by these authors and will most definitely be my last. Steven Naifeh & Gregory White Smith: Get out of the trime crime writing profession...leave it to the true professionals like Ann Rule, Corey Mitchell & Steve Jackson.

Last but not least, I must say this: many, many times we hear the accused blame negligent mothers, domineering mothers, or absentee fathers. Most times, I personally feel that this is one more attempt at ridding themselves of personal responsibility for their actions; more specifically, their choices. However, after reading this book I firmly believe that Danny Starret was the result of a over-worrisome, over-indulgent mother that, with her high-falutin' attitude, thought that her family was above evil doings. The statement that shook me the most was when discussing his case with defense attorney Bud Siemon, she made the statement "Danny is basically a good boy-" That one statement sums up the attitude of Gerry Starrett and her "perfect son."

Given a choice, I wouldn't have given this book one measly star, but I was forced to. I've just finished the book (how, I don't know) and I'm glad it's over because if I had to read one more chapter beginning with wonderful Gerry Starrett sitting in her immaculate living room, holding hands with her perfect family, reflecting on the perfect previous years and 'her Danny', I was going to puke. I found this book to be more about the trials of Gerry Starrett than her son. I never read anything about the victims and their families. And I read very little about Danny's family (except for his strange mother) and nothing about his wife after all this except the two or three paragraphs when she asked for a divorce. Personally, it sounded to me as if Gerry was just a tad obsessed with her son and even after he confessed, she didn't believe 'her Danny' did anything. The guy was a freak and if his mother and he were as close as she claims they were, you think she would have seen some abnormalities in him. Granted, I can understand her desire to help her son but she attacked everybody around him and I got just plain sick of hearing about all the injustices that he was made to endure. He did, after all, rape a bunch of teenagers and kill one of them Gerry. If the purpose of this book--and it seemed to be that Gerry was the only participant in the writing of this book--was to conjure up sympathy for 'her Danny', it failed miserably. The only sympathy I felt for him was the embarrassment of having such a weird mother. (Example: her screaming at the prosecutor for mentioning the murder victim's name when 'her Danny' fell on the floor crying) She was just over the edge. She seemed extremely shallow, more worried about appearances than anything else. I actually thought her husband handled things much better than she did and I kept wondering when he was going to unload his half-crazed wife. As it turned out, she filed for divorce. As I said, I did manage to finish this book, but if you haven't read it, I wouldn't bother with it. It's nothing but a bunch of babble. It's actually a story about an anguished mother of a murderer than anything else.

That's right the victim Jeannie was my cousin. We went to the beach together several times when we were kids. Now I am 32 and finally found out the previously unspeakable (in my family) details through this book. We are the same age born one month apart. I was 15 at the time the murder happened.

We were very close friends, so it was interesting reading about her. Even if it was from the killer's viewpoint. It brought back a lot of memories. For example, she liked peach wine coolers, pringles chips, her favorites, just as the killer said. You could tell she was trying to please the killer with the lies she told him, typical for victims with the Hearst-like syndrome she developed after the trauma of being abducted from her home.

The last reviewer was mistaken when he said Chrissy was murdered, and the book never says she was. Also the reviewer before that didn't read the book well either, Starrett clearly admitted he killed Jeannie. She did not kill herself. There were two bullets in her chest, so how could she have killed herself anyway?

Anyhow, I knew her very well and she was a spunky young woman. Wild and crazy and a lot of fun. Had a lot of potential. Didn't have fear of anything, and like many teenagers believed she was invincible. She was brave and mentally strong. Once she got to know him, she never dreamed he would actually kill her.

The book didn't say how much she hated the name Jean and only used it in the "runaway" note to give clues for someone to find her. She also spelled letters in her name backwards which she normally never would have done. I knew her writing, as she wrote a lot. After her disapearance, the FBI called and interviewed all her friends, including me, looking for her.

True she could have escaped if she hadn't been so ballsy and if she hadn't had that "no one can hurt me" attitude. But I remember at that age I had the same attitude so I can't blame her.

What I find disturbing is the mother's lack of compassion for the family members of the victims. She wouldn't even provide a picture of her son to help in the search. Even if he had been innocent she still should have provided the photo to help investigators. The mother was so wrapped up in protecting her grown son that she lost sight of the fact that several girls were abused and one was killed. And throughout the book she seems to want people to feel sorry for her. How would she have felt if one of her children had been killed? She didn't bother to consider this. All she cared about was whether her murderer son would go to the death chamber, or whether he had adequate prison conditions. She should have been more concerned helping authorities throughout the case. If she wanted to do the right thing. But she was too selfish to help.

It is sad how the killer keeps making excuses for himself. He may have had brain damage from his childhood injuries, but lots of people, including myself had an untreated concussion as a child from a car accident, and I didn't grow up to be a criminal! He is a sadistic calculated rapist and murderer. Something went wrong in his brain but that does not mean he should be declared too ill to be executed.

I see Jeannie's parents (it's acutally her stepdad who raised her)usually once every year. After she died, they gave me a favorite trinket of hers which I still have to this day. They didn't have any other children.

She did want to become a lawyer as the book says, and I have no doubt she was more than smart enough. Too bad she didn't get the chance. She was also one of my best friends and it sure would be nice to have her around. We would have finished growing up together. I never had a large family, and most of the family I do have I am not close with. Those are other reasons why Jeannie was important to me. After we found out she was dead I was severly depressed. My grades got a lot worse and I acted out as a teenager, getting myself into a lot of trouble. Some of it I would have gotton into anyway and some I would not have. I can only imagine if it affected me so much how it affected her parents. It would be interesting to have a book from the victim's perspective, to compare.

Due to politics and the legal system this man was not put to death like he should have been. However, from the book Starrett seemed to dislike living in prison so perhaps his 10 life sentences will be a fate worse than death. I hope so. Even if he is "suffering" then at least, lucky for him, he gets to live out a full life unlike Jeannie who didn't have the chance. I can tell you his suffering in prison, of which he and his mother complain, will never equal the amount of suffering Jeannie's family has endured outside of prison.