Serial Killers Books

This was the first book by Iris Johansen that I have read. I bought it due to the enthusiastic reviews on the back cover or on the first pages in the book.
I do not know how her other books are, because this book was as bad as they rarely come.
One-dimensional characters, repetitive thoughts/actions (just in case somebody had not got it the first or second time), illogical actions (visitor from Scotland Yard shows up at the private home, not at the police station, and our heroes do not even bother to ask for identification, ......)
I could not develop any sympathies for the protagonists, and frankly, I do not care if they get murdered or not.

I have no idea if the other books by this author are better, but I do not intend to find out.
One is more than enough.
Annoying, irritating, boring.
Sorry!

I was very satisfied with the purchase of this book. The book was in good condition, the price very reasonable, and I received it in just a matter of days.

Thank you.

My mom let me use her hybrid for awhile and she had the audio book for "Blind Alley" The radio was boring so I decided to listen to it.

I see from the other reviews this is the 5th book in a series involving the forensic sculptor Eve Duncan, Atlanta Police Detective Joe Quinn, and their adopted daughter Jane MacGuire.

Enter the crazed serial killer named Aldo who is bent on killing any woman that remotely looks like somebody named Cira who later turns out to have been a 2000 year old actor/concubine noted for her beauty. His obsession makes him carve off their faces in order to destroy the face from the world. In his travels he notices Jayne who appears to be the living image of Cira. His quest is almost over! He found her at last.

Overall, the plot was ok. I could follow along and I could imagine the settings. Others complain about it but I am coming from not having read the previous books. One thing I will mention is the characters don't fall back on the other books so you don't feel you missed anything.

I liked the character Mark Trevor as he came across as a good Anti-Hero. Yet, I was interested in knowing more about him and his sidekick Bartlet.

I will admit I expected a trite situation where a borrowed skeleton from ancient times used to lure Aldo would turn out to be Cira. All through the book the question is asked did she survive? Eve as part of the trap does a reconstruction with the promise of doing the real reconstruction. after dealing with Also. When she finishes the final work, you are simply left with her exclaiming "my god" and that was it. I suspect that was the intention but the author changed her mind and dropped it.

The ending was ok. But it left me unsatiated. I expected more and it stopped.

Bernadette Dunne does the reading and in the beginning she annoyed me with her attempts to give accents to the characters. Not to mention that Jayne and Eve seemed to whine a great deal. However, I was able to tune it out as the story picked up.

I will probably check out her early works and will look for more if Trevor comes back.

There's a psycho killer on the loose who is targeting women who look like a cop's 17-year old adopted daughter. Adding to the emotional complexity is that the cop's wife lost a young daughter, presumed murdered, several years ago. The wife is a talented sculptor who altered her career to provide forensic reconstructions of murder victims. She has a talent that goes beyond technical skill. She's able to commune with the victim's spirit in some way and provide eerily accurate portrayals.

The couple knows their daughter is in grave danger. The young woman is intelligent and independent. This combination of traits helps save her life, but also endangers it.

A string of victims along the way leads to the inevitable showdown involving the cop, the killer, and the daughter.

I enjoyed that this book was exciting, took unexpected twists, and yet the author didn't have to gross me out with excruciating detail of every brutal and sadistic murder. Blind Alley is one of a series featuring the forensic sculptor, but I didn't feel held back by not having read any of the others. The character of the teenage daughter was engaging and apparently there are future books about her.

This is a great crime novel for the idle hours - take it on a trip with you.

I did not like this one as well as the rest in the series. It just did not seem to flow as well.

HUGE DISSAPOINTMENT. I READ THE FIRST BOOK AND WOULD HAVE GIVEN IT 5 STARS. IS THIS AMERICA? ARE WE NOT INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY? WE SHOULD LEARN SOMETHING FROM RICHARD JEWELL. YEAH, I GUESS THERE IS A REMOTE POSSIBILITY HE COULD HAVE BEEN ZODIAC, BUT WHAT IF HE WASN'T. ALTHOUGH HE WAS ODD, NO ONE DESERVES TO BE PERSECUTED BY THE MEDIA IN THEIR FINAL YEARS OF LIFE (UNLESS FOR SURE HE WAS ZODIAC). COME ON-HIS DNA DID NOT MATCH, THE FINGER PRINT DID NOT MATCH. IT SEEMS THAT MR GRAYSMITH HAD TUNNEL VISION AND IS TRYING HIS HARDEST TO CONVICE US THAT HE WAS ZODIAC, WHEN THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE SAYS DIFFERENT. SKIP THIS BOOK, JUST BUY "ZODIAC", GRAYSMITH'S 1ST BOOK.

I'm shocked by the reviewers who read this and didn't think Arthur Leigh Allen was the Zodiac. It reaches a point where an unbelievable number of coincidences, and identifications from witnesses and victims are too compelling to consider otherwise.

Yes, Leigh's fingertips didn't match. Yes, his handwriting didn't match. Yes, they never found a "smoking gun." Leigh was an intelligent person who took considerable precautions to ensure he wouldn't get caught. Plus, there is no proof the fingerprints in question were from the Zodiac. They could have come from a number of different people (they did not get elimination prints from everyone at the scene).

As for peoople who didn't like the way the book was written, keep it mind this is not a mystery novel. Events were written in chronological order and often required additional information so the reader would understand.

I agree that some material is repeated and could have done without some of it myself. If you're interested at all in this case, the overwhelming amount of research and information is worth such a minor flaw.

Author too long winded. I love true crime, but this book just couldn't hold my attention.

After seeing David Fincher's film ZODIAC I got a craving to find out more about the crimes Zodiac committed, so I ordered a copy of Zodiac Unmasked, seeing as how the screenwriters adapted this book into the script. All I can say now is, the screenwriters must be geniuses for I have never read so disorganized and badly written a true crime book and I've plowed through some doozies in my lifetime. If you've seen the movie, you've seen Jake Gyllenhaal playing Robert Graysmith, this inoffensive, innocuous mousy cartoonist who hangs out all day at the Chronicle newsroom and little by little he becomes obsessed with the case to the detriment of his home life.

It's not that cartoonists can't write good books, but I wonder how good a cartoonist Graysmith was because as a writer, he's the bottom of the barrel. Not one sentence he writes make sense. Okay, some make sense but then the problem is that whatever interest you had at the beginning of the sentence evaporates by the time he gets to the end. Part of the problem is the hugeness of his topic. Not only are there literally hundreds of suspects, very few of whom ever come alive as "characters," but there are hundreds of cops, ditto, and witnesses, ditto, all of them a huge blur, and there also seem to be hundreds of Northern California towns all of which Zodiac knew well and left terror there.

We can never get an estimate of how many crimes Zodiac committed nor how many letters he wrote. Graysmith doesn't want to say "no" to any possibility, so all of them are left flapping in the wind like the monkey's gumballs.

And yet another part of the problem is that, halfway through the events he relates, he makes the central one the publication of his first book about Zodiac, in which he identified his main suspect under a pseudonym (the man was still alive at that time), so we get hundreds of new sightings based on readers who read #1, called up Graysmith, told him they knew who he was talking about, and he was right, that man is strange. Maybe the first book was better for it wouldn't have all this patting himself on the back in it. This one is nigh unreadable. However since it was the basis for one of the best thrillers I've ever seen, I'm bumping it up a notch or two.

I enjoyed both Graysmith/Zodiac books, but ZODIAC UNMASKED was 100 PAGES TOO LONG. Plus much of the info was repeated 2-4 times. I was almost expecting a test at the end!

I've read great reviews of this books and this is the first one I picked up. I was greatly disappointed. I was right on every aspect of this "mystery" dozens of pages before the "answer" was revealed. I look for a lot more from a good book. Perhaps I'll read another Block one day but I feel I've been burned and there are so many other good authors to try. I think it will be quite awhile before I'm back.

As mysteries go this was fairly enjoyable. Another reviewer is right, that Scudder turns into a "superslueth," but not so super since everything could be seen a mile off. I got a bit impatient in the middle because of that, but then settled in for the ride, which was slow but not annoying. As mysteries go, you could certainly do worse. This is definitely not the best you'll get from Block, but there are worse ways to spend an afternoon.

Scudder's defense lawyer friend discovers himself on the list of "The Will" The Will is a serial killer who announces his victims in advance, and seeks to avenge himself on victims who seem to need to be killed. When Scudder's protection is broken and the lawyer is killed, Scudder sets off after the serial killer.
I think this could have been a very good novel if Block would have taken a bit more time with it, and worked with the plot and sub-plots.

Block's Scudder series is serious business, though his characterizations are phenomenal in all his series. The other two: Burglar/Rhodenbarr and Tanner are much lighter, fun, less serious reading. This particular Scudder continues his personal growth from middle-aged, embittered, alcoholic into maturity. This becomes apparent to readers who have read many of the others in this series before reading this one. Some of action is downplayed in reference to character development, which might put off some readers. A good mystery writer spins a fine tale, but a great mystery writer evolves into a great writer who chooses to write mysteries--evolving the genre into literature. It seems to me that this is Block's objective, conscious or unconscious as the case may be. Certainly his poignant descriptions of Scudder's bout with alcoholism is a work or art. Many sides (some light some dark) are variously depicted in this incredible series. Scudder is all too human. Block also includes many memorable lines (which I add to my quote collection) such as: "'If it turns out there's life on Saturn;' Elaine said, `and we go there, we'll find out they've got three sets of eyes, and five sexes, and something against the Jews'" on page 31; "There is, I have been taught, all the difference in the world between the desire and the act. The one is written on water, the other carved in stone." on page 131; and "The room was thick with two conversations, the one we were having and the one we were choosing not to have." on page 283. I didn't read the series in order, it would be interesting to do so.

Larry Block has published so many novels over the past 35 years or so that you cannot expect all of them to be masterpieces. He does have a few in that category. While this effort is not one of those, it is enjoyable enough. His aging, alcoholic-in-recovery private snoop Matt Scudder is 55, married and stable in this outing. A mysterious killer knocks off a few nasty guys in NYC, and Scudder ends up solving the case. Unfortunately the reader gets to the right conclusion at the same time as the private eye, which robs the saga of its punch. However, the show is not over, because a copycat takes the stage and creates a second case for our hero to resolve, at the same time that he is puzzling out still another, unrelated killing. While Scudder is never in any personal danger in this book, a situation most earlier reviewers lament, I still liked it. He's a complicated but nice guy, with a nice wife and a semi-adopted son who adds sizzle to his life. If you like your mysteries to avoid gristly murder details and personal danger for the lead character, this book will please you. Be warned: other entries in the Scudder series are much more graphic and have more tension, so if that's what you prefer, start with "A Walk Among the Tombstones" or one of the other, earlier novels.

There but for the Grace of God are stories about survivors of the last century's most infamous serial killers like Tracy Edwards who survived Jeffrey Dahmer who was later arrested and confessed to the most horrific crimes in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. There is Kevin Bright who barely survived BTK Killer Dennis Rader who went undetected for 30 years since his sister Kathy's brutal rape and murder in Kansas. His story was the most heartbreaking. Nita Neary survived Ted Bundy because she maintained her silence during the massacre at the sorority house in Florida. She moved on with her life but recalls testifying against Bundy who also cross-examined her as well. There were survivors of Derrick Lee, the Baton Rouge serial killer, and Bobby Joe Long who killed in Hillsborough COunty, Florida. I thought it was a fast read and interesting. The author tried to fill in the gaps and explanations of each serial killer and the people who survived the attacks. He also writes about the Filipino nurse, Corazon Amaureo who got away by hiding under the bed from Richard Speck in the Crime of the Century while 8 nurses were raped and murdered in one night. Although he didn't get to interview her, her story is important even if it is through research. Rosen tries to provide biographies and backgrounds on the killers' themselves.

The descriptions of the killings are very intenese and too vivid for someone of my character. I stopped reading the book in the second chapter because the graphic details of the murder of children left nothing for the imagination and proved to be too much for me to handle. I cannot attest to the entire book simply because I didn't want to subject my mind to those images. Not my cup of tea.

I really enjoyed this book and I could tell that the author was passionate about his topic. I am a former CSI so it was very nice to read about the victims who do live. I have seen so many dead bodies that it was nice to see what came about of those who got a second chance. I also enjoyed the background on the cases. I am from Pensacola where Ted Bundy was (finally) caught and one of my dad's Police Academy students (David Lee) was the one who brought Bundy down. It was an easy read with a lot- while not overwhelming or boring- of background info on the cases. I would definitely recommend this book to any true crime fan who wants to read something just a little bit different.

I was very sxicted to read this book. I was sadly very dissapointed that i read it. First numerous spelling errors. Many factual errors as well. The Bundy chapter was an insult. The author did very little in acutally writing any informaion on the survivors, it was more just a quik recap of certain serial killers. He aslo used this as an oppurtunity to bash the police officers on many cases. Funny how he can so easily point out the mistakes after the fact. He makes it seem as if he would have easily figured out things that they couldnt..... again after the fact. He aslo seems to make certain victims out to be people who did things the wrong way, and could have avoided their fate.
The spelling errors are plenty to. At one point he refers to KAKA t.v., wich is wrong. Then later he correctly calls it KAKE t.v.. Written in bold lettering it stood out, and there should be no reason for the spelling error to have not been noticed.
I bought this book hoping to learn about certain people who were lucky to ahve survived their attacker, expecially Nita Neary, and i got nothing. He did very little if any informationa bout them, and instead made it seem like he was doing them the favor of including them in his book at all.
THe author is very arrogant, and seems to be very proud of himself. Sadly he has nothing to be proud of and should instead feel embarassed.

Mr.Rosen does some good things with this book. He highlights the lives of some survivors of serial killers such as Jeffrey Dahmer,Dennis Rader,David Berkowitz and even Richard Speck.
The question of why some survive while others don't is an interesting one. He partially addresses that question.

The writer vents a lot of anger at criminal profilers in the B.T.K. case and the NYPD in general regarding the "Son of Sam" case. I think it's a detriment to the book itself and in some cases he overstates the obvious, like the fact that Richard Speck was a drunk and an idiot,and two Milwaukeee police officers blundered big-time in returning an eventual victim to Dahmer.

I didn't see the relevance of including transcripts of Dahmer's parents court battle over his brain and whether it would be donated to science or cremated. Speaking of cremation,what happened to Richard Speck in prison or to his body after death wasn't relevant to the subject either.

Good subject matter, it's just that the author roamed unto other areas a little too much for my liking.

I would hate for anyone to have to read this book. Furthermore, I would hate it more if anyone thought that the mathematics embedded in it was correct. Get a mathematical consultant next time, William!

Any good reviews of this book have got to be written by family members or something of the author. This book is just bad. I liked Dark Eye, thought it was different, a little of a stretch, but still pretty good. So I was eager to get this and I didn't even make it past the first ten pages. It was just a giant "yeah right" with the way that the guard talked to the woman and Darcy boy genius coming to such far stretched conclusions, I just put it down. My husband attempted it and had the same result. If you ignore this and insist on reading it, get it at the library so you aren't out any money. What a disappointment!

This is the first time I have read a Bernhardt novel. I am a fan of all the other typical thriller authors - Lee Child, Michael Connelly, John Sanford, etc. I was very disappointed. I think the overall plot was a great idea - I liked the numerology involved - but I just didn't think he did a good job establishing the characters. There was no one character that I was rooting for. Although Darcy, the autistic companion, was interesting, I didn't feel particularly connected to any of the characters. I found myself skimming through the book to get to the end just to find out what the outcome was and not really caring about the pages in the middle. Sometimes Bernhardt would be very detailed about certain specifics (numerology and its history) but I didn't feel it was well woven into the book. It was like he took a couple pages from an encyclopedia and threw them into the middle of the book. I also found that in some of the passages he didn't have a good grasp on writing in the first person for a female character. Some of her thoughts (about a female friend in particular) seemed more from a man's view rather than a woman's. Overall, I was very disappointed because I was hoping to find another author I could enjoy and count on for quality material. I just didn't find it with this one. Being able to sit down to read a book is a luxury and I regretted the time wasted on this book.

Susan Pulaski is an unlikable character, at least the most unlikable Bernhardt has created, and an unlikely hero. As thrillers go this one has a few heart thumping moments, but too often it falls short on credibility, especially during a particularly violent confrontation in the ME's office.

The drug use seems oversimplistic and Pulaski's miraculous recovery completely unlikely to be accomplished in several days with only time off and no time in a drug rehab program like a normal person might expect to be assigned to.

William Bernhardt's books have always been well plotted and populated with interesting characters. Strip Search doesn't quite make the cut to the top of the list, but it is worth the effort if only to spend several entertaining hours passing time until sleep comes.

As a killer stalks the streets of Las Vegas, using numerology to target his victims, outcast detective Susan Pulaski is reunited with autistic savant Darcy O'Bannon, who may be the only one who can understand the murderer's complex mathematical game.
I guess the only thing I like about Susan Pulaski is the fact that her friend, the autistic savant Darcy, hangs out with her. Her character, as mentioned by others, is not likeable. Darcy, on the other hand, makes the novel what it is.
I like Bernhardt's novels and think he's a wonderful author. He writes a well rounded thriller with plenty of suspense and thrills.

Well-written and entertaining (as is most of Haining's work), makes a pretty plausible-sounding argument that Sweeney Todd was a serial killer who actually existed, and was not simply a character inspired by a "penny dreadful." I'm not entirely convinced, because some of the "evidence" is impossible to validate, and some of the arguments Haining presents are a bit of a stretch, albeit well presented. Despite the typographical errors, it's an entertaining and interesting read, even if it doesn't leave you completely convinced of Todd's actual existence.

I found some of the facts mentioned in the book interesting. Those that had nothing to do with sweeney todd but, the history of London. It was a very slow and painful read. I wish there was a way to return all the wasted time i spent trying to get through this book.

While I'm grateful anyone wrote a book on the topic, this is a numbing look at the "facts." It's hard to believe such a slim book on such a rich topic is this dry and uninteresting. Half the problem is that the three or four antecendents of Sondheim's Sweeney Todd are awash in weak indistinguishable characters and developments that do not benefit from close study. The details of melodramas like "The String of Pearls" et. al. just do not engage me.

Haining himself is tight-lipped and emotionally indecipherable. Just try to figure out what his tone is. It's not a good late-night tale of murder, it's not a crime dossier, it's not thrilling or even disturbing. There is no dramatic arc to his writing. You get the sense that he would have preferred the whole story composed as a giant chart of figures, or that his actual task was to trick readers into belief by sinking them in made-up citations.

It was an enormous effort to pick this book up after each pause, and continue.

It seems that the previous reviwers who slaged this book and author wanted all this deep insightful detailed facts when in fact the author from the begining stated their were very few hard concrete facts !!! I too wanted all sorts of detailed facts but the author stated early on that after years of research on Mr. Todd amd Ms. Lovett there was very little documented information on Sweeney Todd and Ms. Lovett their arrest,her suicide and his hanging !!!

The Author clearly tells what is fact and what is fiction and what is conjecture and leaves it to reader to decide for themselves what is a reasonable conculsion with the information that is available !!! Again the Author just gives you the information he could dig up and by his own admission there is more stories then facts....but there are some facts...he can not be held reasponsable because the actual facts are very little....and he also explains why there is such little information on these two people.

The author does not hold back anything....he gives you all the stories past and current....stage plays or bedtime....and how some of these stories stem from some of the actual accounts that are known about Sweeney Todd and Ms. Lovett....the exploits of Mr. Todd have been sensationalized for entertainment purposes to be sure...but those stories do not change the fact there was in fact a serial killer barber and a psychopath pie maker....how did they met!? No one knows....how long they do these evil deeds...again no one knows....The author tell you that !! He does not give you something thats just not there !!!

So....just read the book...take it for its worth...its not the bible nor does it claim to be....but I liked it....and found it very informative....its all good !!!!!

Even while you are reading this, you realize, that while Sweeney is PROBABLY based on some actual events or person, he really never existed, certainly not to the degree he is protrayed as. The story is good though. You can tell that the author REALLY wants the Sweeney of legend to exist. There was a good historical geography lesson of old London in here with the author's attempt to authenicate Sweeney, but to no avail. We can be GLAD that he didn't though. That was one MEAN serial killer!!!!

Former detective William Krueger withheld the truth and misinformed the public about the most important facts and evidence gathered in the Ruth Martin case. He further misled the public when he stated in his book that no direct evidence connected to Martin's disappearance was found and no suspects were developed. I am in the position to inform people that what Krueger printed in his book is not true because I've been investigating and writing about these murders for many years; I'm very familiar with the evidence gathered in these cases as well as the courthouse and police records pertaining to these 1976 murder investigations. In addition, I'm the daughter of Roger W. Thompson, the Logan County State's Attorney who convicted Russell Smrekar of the Fry double homicide. The chain of custody pertaining to the evidence in the Martin case reveals that Krueger and his former partner, detective Tom Mauer, came into direct contact with monumental evidence, which provided these two former detectives with an excellent lead to a possible suspect/accomplice in Ruth Martin's disappearance/murder. However, I have found no record that this possible suspect/accomplice was ever questioned by law enforcement in regard to Martin's mysterious demise. Krueger also presented false information about the BC Rich guitar that was stolen in the Lincoln College dorm room burglary. Krueger claimed that his former partner, Mauer, searched "Smrekar's car, a white and blue Buick Skylark", and found the BC Rich guitar in the trunk. That is a complete falsehood. The BC Rich guitar was discovered at an apartment in upstate Joliet, IL - Joliet Police Officer M G. Taylor shipped it to Tom Mauer at the Lincoln PD. Smrekar didn't even own the Buick Skylark in 1975. It's my strong opinion that both former detectives Krueger and Mauer need to be interrogated about some particular "True Facts & Findings" concerning the Martin case.

This book is full of inaccuracies and discrepancies. On page 39 this 'detective' states he will not reveal the name of the killer's girlfriend, by page 119 he has ratted her out in black & white. One chapter says 2 young boys saw a dark car, another chapter states they saw a blue & white car. Which is it? The real kicker is page 82 where the 'detective' refers to another major murder that happened in that area a couple of months prior to the Fry murders. By time he wrote this book, it was a well know fact which girl was tied up and should have known how to spell the girl's name correctly that escaped. It was also a well-known fact by the time of the writing that this killer did not drive himself to the hospital. It is hard to believe that a detective living in Lincoln IL at that time could not have gotten his facts straight on this prior major murder case. Perhaps he would have been better off leaving that part of it out all together. I went to that trial, I know. If the writing of this book is anywhere similar to the work of a major detective in this case, then my opinion is that he must have done some sloppy detective work. As for the chapter about the psychics, I have not lived in Illinois for over 25 years now and the part about water with a capital K? A detective living there could not figure it out? Hello?? Has anyone in Lincoln, Illinois never heard of Kickapoo Creek? I have ordered another book about this same case and cannot wait to receive it to see if that author has anything straight. I lived in the area at the time of both murders. I remember them both....well. Things like that stay with you. They just don't go away.

As a Sister to Jay Fry, Bill has told the compelling story of the Murder's of of My Loved One's as it unfolded. He has told in great depth the life of such a terrible human and how someone so cruel could be brought to justice and put away as he so justly deserved.
Bill deliver's the story in a very interesting way as keep your attention and your thought process going. The Detective work that was involved is amazing. Hat's off to you Bill! Once again you have come through for my family. Another job Well Done! William Krueger will alway's be in our heart's. A Very Well Written Story.

This is an excellent book showing how small town police use their acquired knowledge to track and convict a murderer. It also tells of the towns people and their anxieties during this time. It is a well written, fast moving book (about 4 hours).

This book should be listed as fiction since it is so full of errors, misrepresentation of the facts, and elimination of much of the real evidence. Krueger is either a deliberate liar and in some way connected with the murders or prefers fiction to fact.

I first read Shirley Harrisons 'The Diary of Jack the Ripper' and was completely intrigued. Here for the first time was REAL evidence against someone thought to have been the Whitechapel murderer. Evidence that seemed to be more than circumstantial and to my utter surprise everyone seemed to revolt against the very idea. Instead of reading what the book had to tell with an open mind, people automatically claimed it to be a hoax, bashing everything the author implied. To date, Shirley Harrison and Paul Feldman have spent many years trying to solve the mystery of this elusive diary and subsequently, the watch. Its been the most expensive Ripper investigation to date. And still today, no one has conclusively been able to prove that the diary or the watch is fake. People jumped on the band wagon when Michael Barrett 'confessed' to having supposedly forged the diary. Anyone with half a brain have since realised (as the author did) that this could not possibly have been true. All the evidence he gave to support his 'confession' has been disproved.

Why people are so vehemently against the idea that James Maybrick could have been The Ripper I dont know. It seems strange that many would rather accuse men with a lot less evidence stacked against them, than seriously consider a man who could clearly have been guilty.

However, as much as I enjoyed her 1998 updated version of the 'The Diary of Jack the Ripper', I found this version to be a complete waste of my time. There was no real evidence to connect James Maybrick/The Ripper to the US killings as the cover of the book suggested. Instead I was treated to a template of her first paperback with a few revisions here and there. Utterly disappointing.

David Forshaw doesn't know the half of it.

When it comes to the "unsolved mystery" that is Jack the Ripper, the Ripperology establishment doesn't just shift the goalposts for Maybrick advocates, it lines a brick wall between either end to make sure that nothing goes through.

There isn't the slightest bit of evidence - not the slightest - that Montague John Druitt slaughtered five or more Whitechapel prostitutes in 1888 - just the musings of a police official, long after the fact, who was not even on the case at the time. But one can be a Druittologist without risking one's standing in polite Ripper society.

There's no evidence that Francis Tumblety was the murderer either - he doesn't resemble any description of the Ripper and he might have been in custody when Mary Jane Kelley was murdered. The case against Tumblety is also based entirely on the long-after-the-fact musings of a retired police officer. But one can be a Tumbletonian without incurring the wrath of Mr. Harris.

There's no evidence that Joseph Kelly...but why stretch this out? Just mention Liverpool cotton broker James Maybrick (who bore an uncanny resemblance to one police drawing of the Ripper) and the Maybrick Diary and Watch (which have not failed any test designed to expose modern forgeries) and Ripperologists roll their eyes, foam at the mouth, and have nothing coherent to say - unless it's to demand a 19th century videotape of Maybrick killing prostitutes before even agreeing to consider him as a suspect.

Even without the videotape, the case against Maybrick is exceptionally strong, and a handful of Maybrickians have, for the past twelve years, struggled against the background noise to perfect the case against him - something not demanded for any other suspect.

Shirley Harrison, who first brought the world the Maybrick/Ripper Diary back in 1992, takes pen in hand again to discuss the trials and tribulations that she has undergone since then - and to review the case against Maybrick, as well as the leads that she has followed up on since 1992.

Much of this book seems to be written off of the same template as Harrision's first or borrows from Paul Feldman's book, though there are a few tantalizing clues that have developed since then which don't quite add up to a proverbial "smoking gun".

If the diary and watch themselves are not "smoking guns", then nothing else has been found which amounts to one - and yet...and yet...Ms. Harrison finds nuggets (American rumors of a Ripper diary circulating in St. Louis in 1888, British rumors of a diary written by Mrs. Maybrick in 1889, first revealed by Feldman, memoranda of deceased correspondents who knew or suspected a Maybrick/Ripper connection before the publication of Ms. Harrison's book, etc.) which make the "smoking gun" seem...ever...so...close. Actually, along this line, while Ms. Harrison borrows liberally from Paul Feldman at times, she ignores interviews that he conducted with living Maybrick descendants that really do suggest that their elders carried a terrible family secret to their graves.

And she does allow herself to get sidetracked. In reviewing the evidence against Maybrick - scientific and psychological - she would have done better to leave Sir Jim's astrological reading out of it. That's only going to provide more fodder for her critics to chew on.

It's actually quite amazing that Ms. Harrison, out of an abundance of caution, downplays some of the more intriguing evidence, such as the "Diego Laurenz" letter to the Liverpool Echo, while displaying no caution at all in wasting time and paper on astrological indicators.

Most disappointing of all is that the book does not come close to living up to its promise to incriminate Maybrick as having committed a number of serial murders in Austin, Texas in 1884-5. The jacket cover has the temerity to promise to place Maybrick "at the scene" of these eight murders, which occurred in the space of about a year.

This promise isn't fulfilled, and Maybrick's involvement in the eight Austin murders is left open as just one more tantalizing possibility. The trouble is that the Maybrick Diary itself, (and again, it was Ms. Harrison who introduced us to it) does not even remotely hint that its author committed ANY earlier murders ANYWHERE.

To the contrary, the Diary's author seems to treat serial murder as a brand new game. There is a reference in the Diary to one or two murders in Manchester, England in 1888 that are not regarded as part of the Ripper canon, and the earlier Manchester murder is described as Maybrick's "first". If the diary is genuine, its language downplays the notion of any Maybrick/Ripper murders occurring before March 1888.

I think that Ms. Harrison is trying a little too hard to gild the Maybrick lily here. I also think that the best part of the book might be the postscript written by Liverpool psychology professor David Canter.

Professor Canter doesn't unreservedly endorse the diary as a genuine historical document, but he does provide a wonderfully clever critique of just how accurate it is, how true it rings, and how perfect a forgery it would have to be. At one point, he wonders mischievously what in the world the genius who is supposed to have "forged" it has to gain by remaining silent at this late date.

Professor Canter might well turn out to be the Maybrickian's answer to Melvin Harris - only wittier and more genial. His writing provides a reminder that when the Diary is removed from the clutches of hysterical Ripperologists screaming "Fake!" and shown to students of the human condition, such as psychologists and lawyers, the skepticism largely vanishes and it is regarded as one more intriguing blueprint of that condition.

Surely, as the years go by, more of these students will continue to review this fascinating document, and surely this is one more reason to believe that posterity is on the side of the Maybrickians. Tempus Omnia Revelat!

Only rarely do we get to read books that are as good as this one. Shirley Harrison has solved the mystery of Jack the Ripper's identity, and explains everything in a wonderfully readable style. I could not put the book down. It reads like an incredible mystery novel/historical detective thriller/tragic love story. Highly recommended!

... these words will be here to warn you. This book has had millions of reprints. It gets a new title every year just so that all the 1 star reviews vanish over for a new term.

The hoaxer admitted forging the diary.

Okay, say the name on the tip of your tongue - The Diary of Jack the Ripper - and watch as the dollar signs flicker before your eyes. It was bound to happen sooner or later. The reason why the Diary is still popular today is because a few Ripperologists attached their name to it and few have had the guts to actually say that they where wrong and walk away from it. The Diary is essentially a mini-volume of notes allegedly written by James Maybrick, around the time of the Whitechapel murders, that sign at the end as "Jack the Ripper". So how does it read? Well it is reasonably fair to say that it is very creative reading and does keep you entertained, but then again that is exactly what it is meant to do. What we know today is that it is undoubtedly a forgery because the owner of the book Michael Barrett simply admitted to forging it himself. End of story, really. So you might enjoy this book but remember that it is only fiction and the case is still far from solved.

What one must remember is that James Maybrick is still a Ripper suspect and was a Ripper suspect long before the advent of the Ripper Diary so don't discount this suspect just on the bases of this book being a forgery.

Click on the authors name and have a good look around. I am sure you will be impressed and the message will finally sink home. Shame about the Ripperologists who went pair-shaped hooking up with this book as the Real McCoy. There have been a few causalities because of it.

OK, here's the lowdown: The author takes an alleged diary of James Maybrick which claims he was Jack the Ripper, but the person who "found" it admitted to forging it. The contents of the diary contradict known facts of the case yet mimic errors that were introduced in Ripper books released shortly before the diary was announced. The contents of this diary clearly state that the Ripper had seven victims and seven victims only. There is even a supposed pocket watch of Maybrick's that has his name, his claim to being the Ripper, and the initials of these victims, which conveniently showed up for the first time at exactly the same time the diary did but from some other person. So that's all pretty ludicrous, but some people will believe anything I guess...

Now we have a new book from the same team who tried to push that forgery off on us... But here they claim, what do you know, that Maybrick also killed off a bunch of other people while running around the United States. But these supposed victims died in completely different ways then the Ripper victims did, and there is absolutely nothing that indicates either the Ripper or Maybrick had anything to do with them.

So if you accept the fact that the diary was forged, Maybrick is clearly innocent and this book is bunk. On the other hand, if you want to believe the diary is real, then it's pretty clear he only had seven victims and they were in England, and thus this book is still bunk.

No matter which way you go on the question of the authenticity of the alleged Ripper diary, this book is simply nonsense.

Don't waste your money.

This is the worst example of cultural studies. The book is full of vague, insubstantiated claims, tenuous theoretical and historical connections, sweeping generalizations, and marred by a fatal lack of basic organization. Cultural studies doesn't have to be this simplistic and thin. Each chapter reads like a series of promises ("I will deal with this issue later in this chapter") that remain unfulfilled, as though the writer couldn't actually deliver on the task of real analysis, but can only give vague and hollow summary. Avoid it.

Curiously missing from this text is a discussion of the fiction of Poppy Z. Brite--particularly her novel Exquisite Corpse. This novel,strangely enough,prefigures the Andrew Cunanan(I hope I'm spelling his last name correctly)murder spree. Also, Seltzer shows no evidence of having read the work of intellectual historian Louis Kern. His essay on the splatterpunk phenomenon would have been useful to Seltzer's arguments.

Mark Seltzer's fascinating book is not for the faithhearted. It is not an easy read, but it is therefore also not to be dismissed (as some reviewers here seem to do).

Seltzer's mind is quite keen. He is a penetrating reader of texts and culture. And he sees relationships where others might see separate phenomena. In many ways building on his previous book about machine culture in America and its relationship to various texts (_Bodies and Machines_), Seltzer here probes the interaction between serial violence in real life and in novels and film. Among other things, he maps the generative influence of the one upon the other, and vice versa.

This book will probably appeal more to scholars and graduate students than to a general readership, for along the way Seltzer does draw on various critical theorists, whom those uninitiated into the world of theory will no doubt find obscure. A recommendation for them might be a book by Seltzer's former colleague at Cornell, Jonathan Culler, _Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction_.

If, however, you are not searching for beach reading, but rather a serious, challenging, and often macabre, look at the ways in which our society is obsessed with violence, this is a book that will repay your close and sustained attention. Moreover, it will probably, like Seltzer's other work, rub off on you in some way and help you read texts -- and culture -- with a more critical eye.

I disagree with the other reviewer who praised this book for, among other things, its historical accuracy. This book has no claims to contribute to historical studies at all. It is a work in cultural studies, and shows all of the characteristics of that genre - obscure language, complex theories, loose historical claims, and a confusion between fictional and non-fictional sources. Obviously the analysis of fiction and non-fiction, together, is essential to the argument of the author, but as no attempt at historical or even literary context is attempted, one is left with a series of under-argued observations.

In "Catch Me a Killer" Micki Pistorius, a noted criminal profiler from South Africa, describes the background and case history behind tracking down some of that country's most notorious serial killers. True crime fans will be drawn to the remarkable success rate of Pistorius and her team

While she manages to avoid much of the sexually titillating descriptions found in much of the true crime genre, she slips into the most common pitfall of people writing about personal experiences--self-congratulation. All too often the book feels like her attempt to pat herself on the back.

Her writing style is unobtrusive and direct, perhaps a reflection of her law enforcement background. And, while that might be attractive to some readers, frankly I found myself getting so bored I wasn't even able to finish the book. Quite obviously Pistorius has incredible stories to share. I hope that in her next book she'll work with a ghostwriter to pen her stories in such a way that readers will be drawn into rather than turned off from them.

This book is a very hard read. It is dull and self important. While I believe Ms Pistorius was involved in helping to find serial killers she is unable to tell the reader how she goes about it. She over uses the word "abyss" to the point of distraction. You are never drawn in or engaged in her story. I do not recommend this book to the "true crime" reader.... but to those people who are interested in how NOT to write, this would be a perfect example.

This is required reading for all true crime buffs! Written in the first person allows the reader to get into the mind of the writer as she profiles and hunts down serial killers in South Africa.