Serial Killers Books

THE MAJORITY OF THE BOOK WAS CLASSIC ALEX DELAWARE, COLORFUL CHARACTERS, IT ALSO HAD A GOOD CROSSOVER WITH PETRA MAKING AN APPEARANCE ... UNFORTUANETLY FOR ME, TOWARDS THE END THE "WOW" FACTOR WAS MISSING. IT ALMOST FELT LIKE JONATHAN WASN'T SURE HOW TO END IT & IT FELT FORCED OR RUSHED. WE NEVER GOT TO SEE THE PSYCOLOGICAL INTERACTION BETWEEN ALEX & THE VILLAIN.

BUT DON'T BE TOO DISCOURAGED...IT'S STILL ALEX & MILO!!

I first read "Compulsion" and loved it. Bought three Kellerman books, the first of which was "Obsession". Yuck. Way too complex and weak plot leaves the reader tired.

I am a long time lover of Alex and his crew especially Milo but apparently this book was such a sleeper I actually forgot I read it which never happens unless it has been years and even then I rememeber something. It did not have some of the thrill of his past books and I believe it was a (2) day read which in itself says a lot, however I do enjoy his descriptions of L.A and the streets and freeways because since I now live in ND it remimds me of home, having traveled those same streets many times in my own life, I never give much thought to Robin but I love the dog and of course you have to love Milo so that makes the read somewhat worth it.

I've read several Kellerman books, and I have to say I'm very disappointed in this one. The plot was both dull and confusing. I couldn't wait to be done with it!! His other books seemed much better.

Ok, so I normally enjoy the Alex Delaware books very much but what was this?? I actually put the book down for a couple of weeks TWICE at the beginning because I just couldn't drum up any enthusiasm for it. When I finally did pick it back up (I figured I'd spent the money, may as well read it) I kept having to go back and reference parts that I'd already read because of ALL the new characters that were constantly being introduced. I had a little trouble keeping up with who was whom and who did what, etc...there were just too many names with not enough (relevant) information to the already sketchy plot. And Tonya. Did anyone else find her completely annoying? The way she kept calling her mom "Mommy"...ugh! And why was she constantly ignoring Dr. Delaware's advice when SHE was the one who sought HIS help? It just aggravated me the entire time. I also noticed several storyline discrepancies which I suppose are also the editors fault, but really...I think Kellerman should spend a little more time on his next novel.

Based on comments about his other books maybe some day I'll try one of them...but this book was REALLY BAD. I'm an intelligent college-eductaed guy that reads 1-2 books per week (of all types) and I simply couldn't follow the story here. A muddy, improbable mess!

While reading this book, my interest in it became "so light it could be blown over in a strong wind," in spite of the flashy "sodium lights".

This book is my new favorite book. At first, I was just reading it for something to do, but soon after starting it I was enthralled by what I was reading. The complexity and depth of this novel is what is truly astounding. Almost everything you think you know about what is happening is unraveled by the end, when Rice pulls out all the stops. This book is one of the best I have ever read, and I would recommend it to anyone and everyone. I haven't read the other two books by Christopher Rice, but if this book is anything to go by, I'm getting them tomorrow. By the end of the book, every minor plot line and every intricate detail are revealed to have grave importance, and nothing is as it seems. It's thrilling and suspenseful, and all around a great read. Everyone should read it.

Was really looking forward to this book but it didn't hold up. The plot was all over the place; too many characters; and at times too confusing. The plot twists that were jaw-dropping in his first 2 books are completely gone here. Hope he does better on his next one.

I discovered Christopher Rice because, having read all Anne Rice's books as soon as they came out, I couldn't ignore his birth and existence and I did read his first book out of curiosity and I have not regretted it at all. I just got this third book when I checked the section of new crime stories in W.H. Smith in Paris, and I do not regret getting it and reading it. I guess from now on I am going to read his books for himself and I will probably call him Christopher to separate him from his mother. This book is in many ways a page turner, but I don't think that's its main characteristic nor quality. For me the main character is that it is entirely contained in one world, West Hollywood centered on the gay community there. After a few chapters you are surprised by the fact that it sounds natural, normal, banal, in other words just plain simple. The psychology, the behavior, the culture, in one word the personalities of Christopher's characters are welcoming you with a wink and a smile. You feel loved, wanted in this world, trusted as a friend. That feeling of being the friendly and nonchalant voyeur in this neighborhood puts you at ease and you just let yourself relax and enter the slit in the fabric that enables you to witness the events of this world. And what events! What fascinating events! It is a thriller, so there are crimes, but instead of feeling or even thinking that it is no surprise that these "fags" could commit such horrible crimes, you feel and think they are committing these crimes either because they are pedophiles which has nothing to do with being gay, or because they have suffered unbearable violence in their youth and gotten no help to negotiate a proper answer to it that could lead them to some peace with themselves, distance with the monster that exploited them, or because they are sick in a way or another, sick with drugs, sick with alcohol, sick with greed, and probably sick with psychological distortion, dismemberment, warping or other disturbances. You project yourself totally into the characters that are running after the criminals, be they men or women, gay or straight. It does not matter anymore. Christopher has erased the problem. Yet we must say that he takes us so deep into horror that it could be classified as some kind of horror literature though he does not want to lead us down that road and is very careful to avoid the gritty details that would make him jump over the limit. The other characteristic that is interesting is the way he follows the trail of the criminals as a journalist and not as a cop. And Christopher adds one element that even makes it more effective: the hunter or tracker if your prefer is the hunted or tracked animal too. Right to the end of the novel, the crime-hunter Adam will be the prey or at least the tracked prey and all his reasoning to determine which way to go is in fact systematically the best way to keep the criminal bird of prey on his tracks. It is not that Adam is dumb. It is because when you only know part of the truth and you try to reconstruct the whole truth in order to be ahead of the criminal you are tracking, you cannot get to the right conclusion, you may but there is never any necessity that it be true because there are always several points of view to take into account and when you are following a trail you have to choose between the low road or the high road or the middle road since you can't follow more than one at a time. So the end is also the result of some luck in a way. But it can't be avoided because Adam, due to his name, cannot be God, hence cannot be true all the time. When you close the book, you think it over and try to sum it up in one sentence and you find it very difficult. The American society, Los Angeles or California if you prefer, is leading crime to some extreme points that always amaze me and the answer to this violence and crime is too often in the hands of simple citizens either because civil society does not trust the police or because the police is far from answering at the proper level of efficiency, motivation and means. Not enough cops, conflicting police bodies and institutions, lack of interest and even at times plain bigotry against some types of victims. Is gay bashing still a legitimate sport or not? We definitely have this question in the back of our minds when we close the book. And nothing would have been possible if at least three women had not helped very effectively, and that's maybe why the book seems to be balanced and full of sanity. It is not sexually segregative.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines

Sometimes I wished Mark Fuhrman would just go away, ever since his notoriety during the O.J. Simpson trial, he has been seen and heard on Fox giving criticisms regarding criminal investigations. Kind of ironic since he bungled one of the century's most notorious cases with numerous mistakes. Now, he has relocated and retired from diverse Los Angeles, California to less diverse Idaho where he lives with his family. He writes about the Murders in Spokane just as his book, Murders in Brentwood because it involves multiple victims. After reading Barer's book on the same case, I vaguely remembered Fuhrman's book which was more about him than about the victims and the case itself. Fuhrman is still trying to gain acceptance among his peers or try to forget the Simpson debacle but wherever he goes, that case will follow him to the grave.

I like Fuhrman's writing style; very "coppish" and informative. The only problems I had with the book were that it seemed "quickie" and incomplete. Some passages were repetitious and there were *no pictures* in the book except fuzzy, blurry ones on the covers - unlabeled - of some of the victims. The victims deserved more than that. Still, it was interesting enough that I finished it in two days!

You don't have to read very far into this book to realize that there's very little actual information about the Spokane serial killer or the way the killer was finally identified and caught. Most of the book is about how Fuhrman thinks that police should do their investigating, the politics of the Spokane Police Department and Sheriff's Department, past crimes, bio info on the victims, and Fuhrman's comments during his radio show. The police never took Fuhrman into their confidence during their lengthy investigation and he doesn't know a single detail other than what was publicly released. Fuhrman portrays himself as an experienced 'homicide detective' but it sounds like most of his police career was in robbery.

Fuhrman seems to rely heavily on his imagination and intuition as a police technique. He writes lengthy passages about might be in the mind of the criminal based on what is at the crime scene and believes that this 'imagination profiling' should then be used to identify the bad guy. He obviously focuses most of his energy on the effort to identify a suspect rather than on gathering evidence which might help to actually convict someone. This type of technique was probably useful in collaring car thieves, burglars, strong-arm crooks, etc. and then letting them plea bargain but is not as likely to be helpful in convicting someone for murder. Fuhrman apparently visited many of the body dump sites (creepy if you think about it) with his fellow talk-show host as a part of his informal 'investigation' and went on the air frequently to criticize the police but never actually found any clues that pointed to a suspect.

All of these shortcomings on subject matter would be forgivable if the book was readable and interesting but it is filled with trivial tedious details that are just boring. I give it two stars and that's very generous.

I like the writing style, but, regardless of whose fault it was,
Fuhrman has very little to say, with respect to the crimes, in
this book. He brought some really important stuff to light in
Greenwich. Here, he only reports a few important incidents which
anybody can find in 10 minutes using Google. He is an EXTREME
outsider in this investigation. Half of the book is about
Fuhrman arm-chair guessing at what the task force and police
were finding out. The other half is spent bitching about the
incompetence of the same task force and police.

With respect to the half of the book about the crime... why
spend your time reading opinions and guesses by somebody with
very close to zero inside information about the crimes? An
insider book on this crime would be great-- but it's not here.

With respect to the half of the book about the incompetence of
the authorities... This could have been covered completely in
one chapter. As an example, only a lawyer could enjoy the
affadavit chapter. An entire freaking chapter devoted to
minute dissection of an affadavit. Even if all the conclusions
are correct (I'm not convinced), I have wasted 20 pages of my
time to find out that the affadavit authors wrote the document
in such a way as to minimize exposure of their own weaknesses.
Who would expect it to be written any other way? Would you
try to influence a judge by telling him how badly you screwed up?

I gave this book three stars but that wasn't my original rating. While I was in the process of reading it I felt it was a four star book (maybe 4 & a half) but in the time between finishing it & writing this review, as I've had time to think about what I had read, it has fallen to a definite three-star rating.

Most serial killer books like this contain the same elements: descriptions of the crimes themselves, details of the investigation including how the case was solved, & a detailed summary of the legal maneuverings as the killer is brought to justice. The author usually has at least the cooperation of the police department(s) involved in the hunt for the killer & may even have a specific source confirming his data & feeding him the inside information that makes such books so interesting. In Murder in Spokane though, Mr. Fuhrman doesn't have such a source--something he complains about bitterly throughout the book. So the details of the case presented here are of necessity pretty sketchy. The book consists mostly of Fuhrman & Mike Fitzgerald, his co-host on a radio show in Spokane, reading newspaper accounts of the case. They then discuss what they've read over dinner or on the phone & then get together once a week on the radio to complain about what a bad job the Spokane police are doing hunting for the killer. Fuhrman & Fitzgerald do conduct some independent investigations of their own but, since they aren't able to get any of their findings confirmed by the police, their private search for the killer is pretty much an empty effort.

Despite the lack of hard facts & inside information, the book can be a compelling read due to Fuhrman's writing ability & I read the book in two sittings. I'd have read it in one if I hadn't started it so late in the evening! But as I worked my way through the book, I began to doubt Fuhrman's motives in writing it. He is constantly harping on the failings of the Spokane police, especially their failure to communicate with the media, & particularly their failure to communicate with Mark Fuhrman. You eventually get the feeling that the primary reason for his criticism is the fact that the investigators wouldn't talk to him. I am led to wonder if he had gotten the cooperation he sought whether the book might have painted a much more favorable picture of the local police. It's almost as though he was using his radio show & the book he was working on as a way to bully his way into the case.

Of course, his criticisms of the police may be valid. The problem is that we have no way of making a fair judgement since Fuhrman can only speculate on why the police are doing certain things. Why won't they release a description of the suspect's car? Fuhrman says it's incompetence but maybe they wanted to look for the car without the killer knowing they could recognize it. Why didn't they put lots more detectives on the case? Maybe they didn't care enough about the victims but it's also possible that the city just didn't have the money to fund a major investigation of this type. At the start of the book, you're inclined to give Fuhrman the benefit of the doubt on these criticisms, but after a while his carping about the investigation & complaints about why nobody will help him with his book made me wonder whether he was playing fair with the reader. It would have been nice to have been able to hear the other side & have someone respond to his criticisms.

Why wouldn't the Spokane police cooperate with Fuhrman? Well, you can infer several reasons from the book, the most obvious being his harsh criticisms of the department on his radio show. Another reason has to do with a friend of his who investigated a decades-old cop killing in Spokane, eventually pinning the murder on another corrupt Spokane policeman. Apparently, there was a lot of bad blood towards Fuhrman & his friend over this & it's not surprising that they wouldn't want anything to do with him. This isn't really fair but it was certainly a part of the problem & Fuhrman never makes the obvious connection between the two issues--an example of his not being fair (he mentions the incident as an example of Spokane P.D. corruption & not as a source of police hostility towards him). Yet a third reason has to do with the thrust of the book Fuhrman wanted to write. From the sound of it, the book would have been about a big-city homicide detective helping out the understaffed & befuddled Spokane P.D.--if they got a sense of this attitude it's not surprising that they would clam up & not have anything to do with him.

As noted above, the book is quite readable & flows along nicely while you're reading it. But it lacks a proper ending, especially for the *real* subject of the book: Fuhrman's charges against the Spokane police. To make his allegations stick, he really needed a "gotcha" at the end, something compelling that would prove his case to an unbiased observer. He never gets this though &, while his criticisms may be accurate, they are just as likely to originate in some very sour grapes.

Is the book entertaining? Yes, it is, but once you're done reading it you'll wind up regretting the money you spent on it.

I finished reading this book in about a week and thought that it was not as bad as some of the reviews claim. The author does tend to ramble on at the begining of a few early chapters about the history of Milwaukee or Jeff's hometown, but it's not as bad as one might think. Buying this book along with 'Massacre in Milwaukee' is the best way to go, as both books contain detail that the other doesn't. And with the low price of both, you can't go wrong.

My review isn't going to be much different from the others.

I have become quite fond of true crime books, and this was the second that I have read. I knew very little about Dahmer before reading this book, and I found much of it to be very interesting.

Unfortunately, the author has prioritized quantity over quality. It seemed to be loaded with all of the bare bones of the crimes, but contains very little meat. It also seems he relied on geography and the history of the regions where Dahmer did his deeds as filler. Believe me, there's plenty of it. I could almost swear that entire paragraphs were duplicated throughout the book just to take up page space.

I'm not a great author myself, which is why I haven't made an attempt at getting paid for it. The fact of the matter is that most of the book could have been written using tourist brochures and local newspaper coverage of the crimes as the only resources.

This book gives great detail into the life of Jeffrey Dahmer's life and the sick crimes that he committed. The thing I did not care for in the book is that it would go off on history of a town or an area and continue for the entire chapter and it left you feeling what does the towns history have to do with Jeffrey and his killings?

If you know nothing about Jeffrey Dahmer and want to know which crimes he commited and how he did it, this is the book for you. But if you have read other books about him, don't bother.

The facts presented in this book are accurate, but it's such a shame that you don't get to know who Jeffrey Dahmer really was, nothing new about why he did it, his psychology. Okay, maybe nobody knew who he really was, but the author could have at least tried to give us something new.

Although I believe that Milwaukee is interesting doesn't mean that I want to know its complete history! It just went on and on! After a while you know more about Milwaukee and Bath than Jeffrey Dahmer ever did.

I guess that books like this one are written because of the fascination for serial killers. Although nothing new is said, the author knows that people will buy his book. And that's a shame.

This book starts out like it is going to be interestin and then after the first chapter it starts getting really boring. It tells the same thing over and over. First he takes home the boy and then drugs him and then cuts up the body. That is all it says everytime, it doesn't go into detail. The ending is really boring i could barley finish it. He gets caught durin the middle of the book and the rest is just trial crap that is really not intersting.

This book was wonderfully put together, and creepy as well. I loved the accounts of the the criminal behavior. It provides insight to the actions of the monsters themselves. It was chilling, exciting, and sick!!

This was a trip into the minds of some of the most dangerous people, who might be your neighbor, your co-worker or even a friend. Step into the shoes of these diabolical maniacs and explores their homicidal rampages. I thought it was well done and a must read for any serious criminal justice fan.

This book explored a lot of different cases and included a lot of material you don't find in other forensic/crime books, such as the interview with Jeffrey Dhamer. However, Robert Ressler has a HUGE ego problem and seemed to spend a lot of time boasting about himself and his work, his overwhelmingly large picture on the front of this book is just a small comparison to whats inside. ;)

Despite his braggadocio, the stories he tells are chilling, especially the ones about the South African serial killers (I had never heard of either of them) and information about the Aum Shinrikyo cult that I had not seen elsewhere. Aum Shinrikyo, if you don't remember, was responsible for the Tokyo subway gassing in 1995. Its leader appeared to be a Jim Jones in the making, and that was the least of his danger.

John Wayne Gacy was always just plain unlikable, but I always thought Jeffrey Dahmer was sort of a pitiable character and never was this reinforced more than in the chapter about him.

This book has great basic information on the most notorious murderers. If you are an experienced reader, you will see alot of basic information, but if this is your 1,2 or 3 book on the subject I strongly recommend it! His interview with Jeffrey Dahmer and his information regarding Dahmer is unique.

Again Robert Ressler takes about 1/5 of the book talking about his carrer, and it is easy to skip a few pages because he goes on and on about his career without making a constructive point.
If he would reduce needles carrer information and stick to the facts, he would be in no doubts and incredible writer.

But along with Roy Hazelwood, you have to filter through the egos.

I honestly couldn't tell you if this is well written or not because in the first pages they describe an absolutely gut-wrenching, terrifying description of some poor soul being tortured by this maniac that I couldn't bear to read any further. I sincerely wish I'd never read any of it at all and so far, I cannot say that about any other book I've ever read and I do sometimes like to read true crime novels but this one was just too much for me to take. I managed to make it about a quarter of the way through the book and then just had to move on to something more cheery like "The Collector" by John Fowles.

I got this book some months ago, have never finished it and have NO INTENTION of ever finishing it. Now whenever my husband is out of town I sometimes scare myself silly wondering if there are other such subhumans out there doing much the same thing.
Bottom line: Can't really describe whether it's well written or not but it most certainly is ghastly and sickening.

This book is filled with insignificant information from insignificant sources. The author apparently couldn't find enough fact to complete a whole novel on David Ray Parker and his group of followers or chose rather to fill the book with as much sensationalism as possible. He gives voice to people that have nothing to do with the case. There was little to no investigative journalism here. That being said, this book did manage to give a horrific glimpse into a gruesome world. It also managed to enlighten the reader about the level of difficulty in proving someone guilty in court. As well, the book demonstrated the predator's level of intelligence and acuity for research prior to and during his period of violence. The victims were those castaways of society that few care about. Thus, if the reader is willing to wind through all the other disengenous nonsense, she will percieve the true identity of a serial sadist.

I'm stunned at the reviewers who said this book was boring or they almost slept through it. The book itself was well written so I'm not rating the book on they terrible story inside as I think a few have. I thought the book was well written, but I personally had nightmares for weeks after thinking about what these women must have gone through and I really couldn't even imagine and didn't want to. I tossed the book in the garbage after reading it, I couldn't even have it in the house, it just is so disturbing and reeks of evil.

This book is sick. The perpetrator was sick. Everyone around him was sick. The victims were pathetic, but the background of their lives seemed to condemn them to being in the sights of sickos like David Ray. When I finished this book, I wished I had never seen it.

Let's face it! This book is not intended for people who get easily squeamish. Cyndy Hendry and David Ray were made for each other because they committed some of the most heinous crimes against women with no conscience to spare between them. Hendry was a true crimes reader but so am I and I don't have any desire to get mixed up with the likes of David Ray. The fact that book is decently written by a new author like James Fielder shows his effort in deterring possible squeamish readers off. If you don't mind reading books about the Homolka-Bernard case, this book is for you. Although Cindy and Ray are nothing like the Canadian couple who were nicknamed Ken and Barbie. Cindy and Ray are considered to be white trash and on the wrong side of the tracks. The author explains how a woman like Cindy came to be from a rotten upbringing in Washington where she was kicked out of the house. Her own children don't seem to care for her. Cindy is only looking after herself and sold Ray down the Rio Grande faster than I could write this review. Ray was just inhuman in his behavior toward everybody particularly women. It's no wonder that his daughter dresses in masculine clothes or gives the impression that she is still trying to please daddy and believe in his innocence. The fact that an FBI agent committed suicide after seeing the horrors of the toyroom with the coffin, the female examining table, the chains, the handcuffs, the dildos hanging around, the cameras, etc. is enough to make even the most tough guy vomit his guts out. The crimes that David Ray were far worse than most murders. Maybe because he took joy in watching women in excruciating pain and revelled in it as well. What caused a human being to revel in watching women, beg, plead, and agonize for days to live? I don't know and I don't think Ray even knew of his inhumanity but this book gives us a detailed description and insider's look as to what was happening in the sick, disturbed world of David and Cindy. Not that I want to go there or visit there at all. Their world was one sick hell of an existence.

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.

This book kind of plodded along. I finished it but I wasn't excited about it. The writing was adequate but the punctuation made me want to swat the publisher over the head with a 6th-grade English book. There were commas merrily dribbled all over the place, and it annoyed me so much it took my attention away from the story. Heaven knows I'm not perfect, but I wish they'd let a high-schooler edit the thing before they published it.

I have read the commments on this book and I disagree. I found it easy fast-paced reading, not confusing or boring.

The book Suddenly Gone, was not the best I have read. I knew two of these girls and why Grissom wont give the families a chance to locate and burry the victims is beyond me. This case brought to life the Death Penalty in the state of KS. And if not for one mans driving force through it all its hard to say that Grissom would have been convicted. Thank you Paul Morrison, for caring so much for the girls and the families. I am from Overland Park Ks. and also know that Grissom most likely killed at least one other girl, Terri. Our town was in tears as the search continued for years. If you didn't live through that trial and feel first hand what went on you can't possibly know the effect it had and still has on many of the KCMO and KCK Overland Park and Olathe Ks areas. You are still loved and missed so very much. Pasha Oswalt

This is a top true crime book. Five stars.

The eight prior posted criticisms, made over nearly six years, are, in my view, inconsistent. The previous reviewers stated reasons for complaint do not go to the merits of this very good read.

The first poster on 3 January 2000 explained that this is a compelling read, then rated the book at one star complaining that the author became too close to the crime victim's families. The key part of the review is that this book is a "compelling read," because that is what readers seek.

That reviewer's complaint that the writer felt a great deal of empathy for the victims may say something about the status of the reviewer's emotional intelligence, but does not address how that makes this a bad book. Others may find the author's empathy for the victim's to be positive.

The first poster also complained that the book lacked details, then the second poster praised the book's "detailed job" in telling this tragic story. This book is detail rich.

The third poster explained that this book changed his or her life because the poster will be much more careful from now on, but then rated the book at only three stars. Rating a life changing book at three stars makes one wonder about how the poster rates less influential books. Three stars may be this person's top rating.

The fourth poster complained that she or he was bored by reading about the detective work. The poster was specific about what was boring: what the police did in order to find evidence. Because detective work IS the seeking of evidence, to criticize the author for writing about that means that the reviewer should have been reading in a different genre. True crime readers traditionally want to read of detective work.

The fifth poster complained that the killer was not "linked" to the first murder victim discussed in the book. The reviewer apparently did not apprehend that the killer was a suspect in that woman's murder. Because the killer was not charged in that woman's murder -- no one was charged in that woman's murder -- does not mean that the killer was not linked to the woman. The killer WAS a suspect in that woman's murder. This was the first time the killer was a suspect in any murder. Including that information in the book made much more sense than excluding it.

The sixth poster explained that he or she read a lot of the work of a DIFFERENT true crime author and was disappointed that this author does not write like that other author. To my view, because strawberry does not taste like orange does not make strawberry bad. Go ahead and read the orange author if she is your favorite, but other readers may prefer the strawberry author.

The seventh poster wrote that "this story should have been told" but also wished that it had been written by a different author. Again, that does not go to the merits of this good book.

The final prior poster complained that this was not the best book she or he ever read. For each of us there can be only one "best" book read, so that criticism is like saying your child's second best drawing is not her best drawing. That does not mean your child's second best drawing is bad.

Also, readers interested in the BTK investigation will find this book fascinating. Detective Ken Landwehr is described as a trained profiler who investigated a 1989 Wichita murder in part by writing a profile of the killer. In 2004 Landwehr became head of the BTK Task Force, so according to author and former FBI agent Dan Mitrione, the BTK Task Force was headed by a long time profiler.

Suddenly Gone is a good true crime book. If this is your genre, read it.

My Aunt was one of the women this book was written about. For the people who feel the women weren't "honored" or the families were intruded on, they are misinformed or just ignorant. Mr. Mitrione was respectful and showed great concern to try to get details correct for our family's sake. For those who feel he just got too close to the families involved to write an objective book, that's your opinion. I have to disagree. I feel this was an important piece needed to bring a personal side to this cold, senseless crime.
Thank you Mr. Mitrione for acknowledging our pain and feelings. We miss Theresa every day.

The book about Glen Rogers is well written but I personaly think that maybe if he did these things that he was having black outs. The book was well written and your heart had to out to these women. You can feel the loss that their family feels the horror of it all happening. I write to Glen also and I think that there is more to the story.

I was facinated with the main character. I have seen many high school boys like him. Sad.

well this book was good until about 3 quarters of the way through then it just got tedious and i actually skipped pages!! i read these types of books all the time and theres a few things i must say. first what happened to the rest of the girls that were killed?? i mean they talked about 1 conviction so how am i to know what happened to the other cases because really i cant say oh yes this guy did it if the author didnt even tell us what happened to the other victims(as far as court)! now i have to go search the net now to see if im missing something! thats something the author forgot to tell us. 2nd why was so many pages spent on extradition? who cares?!?!?!? it couldve been done in 2 pages and then there was some tiny blurb at the end about what happened at trial, almost like the author ran out of time and paper!! i didnt get that because although i dislike too much rambling done in books about trials i do like more that a he is guilty he got death! there shouldve been at least 40 pages spent on that. other than the end i thought the book was pretty good but i now that i feel i got jipped at the end i dont recomend this book or the author as i feel the writing was very mediocre.

How boring. I agree with one of the other reviewers who said it was written over and over about Glenn's drinking habits. Who cares? We got the picture...he was a nasty drunk. Want good true crime....."An Hour to Kill", "Dead and Buried" or "Salt of the Earth".

I don't usually feel so strongly about a book that I take the time to write a review, but I do feel that other potential readers must be warned!
I can tell you that I made it all the way to Page 150 before I abandoned the mission of trying to finish this book.
The author was really beating a dead horse (yes, the pun was intended) with his use of cliche's and in his descriptions of Rogers and his victims. For example, how many times do I have to be informed of how much Rogers drank, what he drank and what his reaction was to all of which he drank? The author also goes off on little rants that really aren't relavant to what is really going on (like going into an in-depth history of "Carnies") and his over-use of adjectives really got on my nerves. At one time, a description of the victim and a crime scene was given and all I could think was "Was this actually written in the reports?".
Who edited this book, anyway? And exactly who was the intended audience? This story could have really been interesting, but the entire thing read like a badly written magazine article.

It's hard to do this book justice. Let's start with a few quotes:

"I opened the cover to the first page, brown with age but clearly very readable in a smooth handwritten style that shouted out the date of the first entry ... November 1, 1888."

"My mind's eye peered deep into the smoky veil of time which
cleared as I read on."

"In 1940 world war appeared to be evident."

"The man ran back to the sedan, firing at us continually until he was safely in the sedan which was already speeding away from the rest area into roadway traffic."

Discerning readers may wonder if these lines aren't misplaced submissions to the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest: On my honor, they are not. ('Sic' to all, by the way.) Nor were they selected after a complete read; how could anyone do that? They were chosen at random when (after starting the first chapter in the belief that this was a credible Conan Doyle/Sherlock Holmes pastiche) I realized the truth: this is an amazing book and its merits should be appreciated more widely.

Especially among those considering buying it. In a word (okay, just a few): Don't, unless you teach creative writing and want between one pair of covers, examples of every fault known to the craft. This may not be the worst writing ever published, but it is way the worst I've ever seen.

This book had not only an author but a publisher and most amazing of all, an editor. I cannot help wondering: Why?

The premise is on a par with the writing. But I won't reveal it. See, I'd have to read a lot more to figure it out, and I've got more important stuff to do today, like empty the kitty litter box ... even though I don't actually have a cat. Okay, just a minor part: Adolf Hitler was a direct descendant of Moriarty.

Possibly I've missed the point: This could have been intended as a send-up. If so, it's a marvel of the genre, and in millenia yet to spring flaming into golden (or otherwise) existence, bringing with them yet untold events, it will become a cult classic, with fans forcefully proclaiming across the many centuries their favorite lines.

In that case, I like "In 1940, world war appeared to be evident."

There is nothing unusual about another Sherlock Holmes novel - not even one in which the Great Detective is pitted against the best known uncaught criminal of the nineteenth century, Jack the Ripper. Where 'Bloodguilty' varies from the pack is in that the Holmes portion of the book is only about one-half; the rest is taken up with the twentieth century consequences of the actions of the Ripper.

The story revolves around a diary of Dr. Watson kept hidden by the Baker Street Society, who "both guard and insure the immortal continuance of the world's greatest consulting detective and his faithful chronologist, Dr. Watson." The good doctor has specified that this diary not be released until 100 years after the last entry. And now it is time to reveal the truth about Sherlock Holmes and the man who was known as Jack the Ripper...

But, the legacy of the Ripper lives on, and will stop at nothing to prevent the truth getting out.

Fairly well-written, the story doesn't contain too many twists and turns that can't be predicted, but exactly what tack a particular author would take with this kind of story isn't predictable. Raymond Thor produces a creditable effort, but not one that is not necessarily superior to other efforts.

This was one of the most enjoyable books I have read in a long time. I was caught up in it from the first page and couldn't put it down! I just had to find out what was going to happen next. The story is a little terrifiying because it seems so plausible. The author guided me through each chapter with just enough to keep me wanting more. Now that's a great book!

In a great novel, Sherlock Holmes and Jack the Ripper are presented in a most unusual way. The author cleverly forms the foundation of a mystery that spans a 110 year period. The story begins in 1888 and ends in 1998 in the deserts of Southern California where the mystery is finally unraveled. This book kept me on the edge of my seat!

The plot is a REAL WINNER, but oh I wish that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had written the actual book itself! There are more typos and grammatical errors and clumsy phrasing here than the worst first draft I've ever had to proof read! It's a pity, because these things really get in the way of the rest of the text, which is a bit feeble in its construction anyway. As said before, the plot is a really exciting sort of "Indiana Jones meets Sherlock Holmes", but the writing got in the way!