Serial Murder Books

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.

This load of crap had to be excreted--no way was it written. Set in 1919, the author references transistors, which weren't even invented until 1948, What turned this book into a doorstop was the author placing the Winchester Mystery House in San Francisco, not San Jose where it really is.

Give this mess a wide pass!!!

Gill Avila

Thomas Wheeler's book is about a secret society known as the Arcanum trying to solve the case of a murder and the mystery of a group of angels on earth. The society members in the story are Arthur Conan Doyle, Harry Houdini, H.P. Lovecraft and Marie Laveau. I thought the book was an easy read and very good story.

Some of the other reviewers gave it a thumbs down because the concept was not very original but although it may not be, Mr. Wheeler did a great job with it and I found the book to be very enjoyable. I would definitely recommend it to anyone interested in sci-fi/mystery stories.

Maybe it's because I just finished "The Nimble Man" by Christopher Golden, which has a similar premise but a lot more corn, but I really enjoyed this book. Yes - they're stereotypes of themselves. It needed fleshing out. But some of the phrases, the bits, the wordings, all speak very well of his skills as an author. The guy is going to be a pretty good author. And he doesn't do this book with a nudge and a wink, he goes straight with it - this could have been camp, this could have been cheese - it wasn't.

If you want an enjoyable read, and like the idea of seeing Houdini, Laveau, Lovecraft, Doyle, etc in a action thriller together, I'd definitely recommend it.

I need to repeat that because it's important: This novel is not historical fiction. The characters could have been anywhere, anywhen, and the story would have been exactly the same. The setting was a matter of convenience so the author could get the players in place and move straight into the plot - which Wheeler did.

This novel, despite having some amazing characters in it, isn't a character driven book. It's a story driven book, and - like the setting - I got the distinct impression that the author chose familiar personalities who not only could contribute to the plot, but who didn't require so much explanation that the book would have needed to be another 50+ pages.

The story is fantastic and well-paced, and one hell of a fine read. It's not what you might expect, so leave your expectations at home and hang on for a wild ride.

I got this book from the library expecting an easy and fun read, and that's what I got. I think it's a mistake to expect anything else from it.

It wasn't the best written book in the world, but certainly not the worst and it was just a bit of fluff for me to read between more serious books.

I don't recommend buying this book, but if you see it at the library and you're interested in the period or concept, give it a read.

SUMMARY: The latest in Jackson's series revolving around the ever-expanding family of tragic heroine Faith Daniels finds Kristi Bentz, a secondary character from the previous installments, at the forefront. Recovered from a previous attack, Kristi decides to re-enroll at her alma mater, All Souls College, to further her aspirations of becoming a true crime writer. The fact that several female students have gone missing from the campus only intrigues her more.

WHY YOU'LL LIKE IT: Jackson has a knack for creating and developing likable heroines, and Kristi Bentz no different. As she was established in other books, it's nice to see her get a turn as a main character. Jackson endeavors to capture the gothic allure of New Orleans in these epic potboilers, and adequately succeeds.

WHY YOU WON'T: Despite the potential of this series, the plots have become formulaic and often ludicrous. How many serial killers can one family, disjointed or not, attract? Jackson's antagonists have become predictable and boring, whispering their bland threats into the ears of the reader, usually mixed with laughable profanity about his desire to violate sexually the protagonist; the killers are no longer distinguishable from each other and it's frankly impossible to care what their motives are or what drives them; it has become simply a matter of counting the bodies they leave in their wake until the inevitable concluding showdown. The romance scenes are pedantic and pejorative, and it's offensive to read the women of Jackson's novels become so besotted with their paramours that they become caricatures of themselves, not to mention the predilection the author has of shining the light of suspicion on said suitors, making her heroines' eventual submission all the more pathetic. Most aggravating is the heroines' penchant for putting themselves in harm's way (often planned) while not having taken the necessary precautions and thus requiring a man to ride to their rescue; regardless of self-defense training or that can of mace for which they never reach in time, it would be nice to see one of these women let someone know what they're up to and where they're going prior to racing off on a half-cocked 'mission'. The plotting is haphazard and shoddy, and the novel runs about one hundred-fifty pages too long with several redundant passages.

BOTTOM LINE: Jackson is a talented author with many illustrious works to her credit; this is not one of them. She's in danger of becoming generic in a genre in which she was once a leader.

I have just started reading this book and have to force my self to read each night. Usually I can't put her books down. This one is slow going. I am hoping it will get better.

I just finished reading Lost Souls and found it to be one of the most interesting books I've read in a long time. I probably could have read it in one night it was so "on the edge of your seat" but as I was up late by myself I actually got a little uneasy and yes, I admit it, a little scared. I had to put it down and finish it in the daytime. Thanks Lisa, for a good "killer" read!!!!

With LOST SOULS, I decided to go with audio, just in case there were some dry spots, like in her last book. With this book, there were none. In fact, I think out of all three - SHIVER, ABOSULTE FEAR, and LOST SOULS, this was the best of the best. It wasn't until I read ABOSULTE FEAR, that I realized there were two previous books - HOT BLOODED and COLD BLOODED.

I can only speak for the last three. This is a great series to get caught up in!

I so wanted to like this book. I gave it a longer shot than most books. But the author doles out important facts like a hospital giving out pain meds. Not nearly quick enough! It took me over a week to read maybe a quarter of the book. I kept thinking one more chapter, it will pick up after one more chapter. No such luck. It had good potential with the premise, but fell way short on execution! If you want to be a lost soul and get lost in boredom and minutiae, then this is your book.

Set in New Jersey's famous Pine Barrens, the story is about a man whose nightmares link two murders 20 years apart. His connection to the second murder destroys his marriage. Unfortunately, the wife is a cardboard character, and the hero's hallucinations get tedious. I skipped the middle 100 pages to jump to the denouement, but neither the story nor the writing had improved. Not what you might expect from a literary icon.

Joyce Carol Oates provides a good suspense novel about a serial killer and a man who gets entangled in the investigation as a result of having had an affair with one of the victims. The book is fairly graphic and at times reminiscent of Silence Of The Lambs. The plot is suspenseful enough to hold the reader in it's grip until the outcome. The scene shifts from the investigation to the killer's demented musings in alternate chapters.

Much of the domestic life details of the characters rings true and the book is a certified page -turner.

Joyce Carol Oates's ventures into genre writing often come with a twist. While the subtitle of this book is "A Novel of Suspense," it doesn't fall into the thriller side of the genre; instead, it's more creepy and troubling than suspenseful. (Similarly, her "Middle Age," subtitled "A Romance," is a satire of suburban lives linked by a dead man--hardly the stuff of romance.) In all her novels, Oates shatters our preconceptions about plot and genre and instead worms her way into the minds and lives of her characters.

In "The Barrens," she introduces us to two artists with lethally divergent tastes. Matt McBride doubles as real estate broker (his day job) and as Nighthawk, a photographer of the dark. He gradually realizes that it is his owl-like existence that gives him more satisfaction than his salaried profession or, for that matter, his wife and kids. Joseph Gavin is an artist by day (who goes by the rather silly alias, "Name Unknown"), but the impulse for his horrific "masterpiece" springs from his second career as a serial killer.

McBride's and Gavin's lives cross twice: with Gavin's first victim, a high school student whom McBride knew as a teenager, and with his latest victim, a local artist whom McBride met socially (and perhaps more?). The result is a perverse dance of hunted and hunter, and Oates alternates the perspective between Gavin, whose internal logic belies a poisonous madness, and McBride, who is flirting with the edge of sanity himself. Oates's investigation of McBride's descent into a psychological maelstrom is wholly convincing. The creepiness factor crawls in when McBride's obsessive pursuit turns into a bizarre and unsettling empathy for the murderer.

From the outset, we know who is innocent and who is guilty--of the murders, at least. But guilt is a messed-up emotion. The police, who don't even know about McBride's tenuous connection to the first murder, suspect him of the latest killing--in no small part because McBride becomes infatuated with the lives of the victims as well as of their killer. One of the scenes the author describes pitch-perfectly is McBride's interrogation by the detectives; he is torn by the absoluteness of his innocence, his unreliable memories, his fear of what his family and colleagues might think, and the feeling that he might be guilty of something.

Unfortunately, Oate's portrayal of Gavin borders on eye-rolling caricature; it's an incongruous, cartoonish portrayal right out of one of Thomas Harris's lesser novels. The language in these passages, filtered through the mind of a mad loner, seems often off-kilter: "In exactitude and patience he had taken her one morning." "These words were a girl's uttered in surprise and vexation." (Exactitude? Vexation?) Each of the killer's tirades, filled with biblical allusions and anatomical "exactitude," serves only to interrupt the compelling study of McBride's meltdown. The book would certainly have been much better (and, perhaps, filled with far more "suspense") if Oates had left Gavin's character the mystery.

Not a very good novel. The characters were sketches (when Oates---writing here as "Rosamund Smith"---has the demonstrated capacity to bring fictional men and women to life) the plot was flat and far from original, the circumstances about which this book was concerned were uninteresting, the violence was neither repulsively shocking nor mentally interesting, and I felt no kinship for the main character, his plight, his inner demons, or his motivations, artistic and retributive. Since the identity of the killer active in the New Jersey pine barrens was revealed early on, there wasn't even room left for suspense or mystery, so one read The Barrens merely to...well...see what Oates did with this tale. And what she did was drag a potentially fine short story out to nearly three-hundred ultimately unfulfilling pages. It's hard to believe the same person who wrote Zombie only a decade ago could turn out another "murderer on the loose" book so inferior to its predecessor. As I said in my title, this time-killer is a letdown.

This one had its ups and downs... you knew who the killer was from the beginning and parts of the story kept you reading on. Some pages you read just to get to the better parts. I love Joyce Carol Oates though and this one was a must read because of it. No regrets of course but be prepared... this is an ok read.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Complete rubbish, the entire book.

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

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

Blah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm a fan of Beverly Barton because of the fast pace and suspence she puts in all her books...except this one. I was bored through the whole thing. I hopeing her next book, which should finally be about Griffin Powell, will have her old edge to it. I guess everybody has a bad day. This was Bartons.

Although I generally love Beverly Barton, there have been a couple of her books that have lacked her normal luster. This wasnt that bad per se but honestly, the main female lead, Lindsey McAllister, killed me. Im not one to dislike the weaker female leads but this was ridiculous. The girl had not one ounce of integrity or self respect and for the first time in any romantic book I have ever read I found myself wishing she would leave him. Who could stand it. I actually liked Judd more than I like her. However the story itself was good. Worth the read if youve got nothing else but I cant say I wasnt disappointed.

Too bad 1 star's the lowest rating that you could give a book...I'd give this a negative star if I could.

This is just too gruesome for my taste. And I get the impression that the author really enjoys these violent scenes because there's just too many pages devoted to their graphic description. Even the ending isn't all that satisfying.

With all these scenes depicting violence against women, I just can't believe that a woman would write this book! I honestly wouldn't classify this book as a romantic suspense... it's more like horror with a couple of sex thrown in.

I actually did hear and read a lot of negative feedbacks about this book but I thought it couldn't be that bad since this is Beverly Barton, for crying out loud! Obviously, I should have just listened and not wasted my money buying this book.

Well, I really liked this book too. I thought Lindsey and Judd had great chemistry and I really liked Judd's character (a typical sullen male)!! The way Judd reacted to certain situations was so male specific, I had to laugh. And of course I can't wait for Griffs and Nics book next year. Hurry up Mrs. Barton!

I've tried to figure out who disgusted me most in this book, Judd or Lindsay and it's too close to call.

When Jenny Walker is murdered and her hands cut off, Lindsay McKenna is the first detective on the scene. She witnesses Judd arriving and holding his dead wife in his arms while pouring out his grief. She supposedly falls in love with him right then. She even quit her job and took one at the Powell Agency so she could be near, and help, Judd.

Judd was a self-pitying, obnoxious, entitled, arrogant, mean drunk. If I'd heard one more "my Jenny" from Judd I would have screamed. He and "his Jenny" seemed to have had nothing in common except that they looked good together. They didn't like to do the same things so Judd always caved and did what she wanted. Jenny was constantly flirting with other men in front of Judd and had dated both Griff and Cam before she "honored" Judd by selecting him. Judd used Lindsay as his whipping post, abused her, used her love against her and she kept coming back for more

Lindsay was pathetic, whiny, and masochistic, following Judd around like an adoring puppy for FOUR YEARS. For all that time she makes no secret, to anyone, how much she loves him, even though he's treated her with complete contempt from the beginning. Six months earlier when making one of her visits to "poor Judd" at his hunting lodge, he nearly rapes her, shoves her out of bed, laughs at her and tells her when he "screws" her he'll be pretending she's Jenny just like he has with all the other women since Jenny's death. He constantly hurt and humiliated her in public and out but she kept making excuses for him. Lindsay had no self respect, no pride, no dignity and continues to make a complete fool of herself for the entire book. She's an embarrassment to women. I rolled my eyes so many times it's a wonder they're not stuck to the back of my head.

Griff is no prince either. He's an arrogant, chauvinist user who thinks his money entitles him to anything, legal or illegal. I liked him in other books but not crazy about him in this one.

Why did I give this a three instead of a two? The plot was unique and riveting. I liked the characters of Sanders and Nic. Hopefully Griff will improve in the next book and Judd & Lindsay will be nowhere around!

Yes, these three authors got together and wrote an overly long story. Each wrote about one of the main characters, and it all blended pretty well. The wrap-up ending was from a soapy soap opera. The current, very predictable love match-ups were as much a part of the story as the mystery.

One of the teen boys was killed at the 1986 Valentines Day dance at St. Elizabeth's Catholic HS. Twenty years later, the alumni are planning a reunion and the women on the committee are dieing. It was assumed Jake's killer had resurfaced and was killing again after twenty years. The murderer's secret hideout was too far-fetched; the disguises too obvious; cleverness way too much. Overall, don't waste full price money on this one.

It's about time the women from St. Elizabeth's all girl's school in Portland, Oregon had a class reunion. One person has been waiting for this day for twenty years. Now it's time to take her revenge for a murder committed long ago. Will she succeed in her mission of retribution? Can someone stop her before it's too late? It's a thriller mixed with a little romance. A good read.

I just finished reading this book and while it was entertaining, the redundancy was rather irritating. I can see an author remind the reader of an incident which happened 20 years ago, once or twice, as the story progresses but the incident was like a litany in this book. I was getting tired of reading about what happened 20 years ago. I got it the first time it was explained. Like some other reviewers, it didn't take me long to figure out who the killer was, so I thought I must have been wrong because it was too easy. I think I'll stick with J.D. Robb (Nora Roberts).

I had heard a couple people speak of the author Lisa Jackson previous to reading this book, and the idea of three different authors combining their skills to weave a solid, gripping suspense novel intruiged me.
I was passed this book by a friend and really had to work at finishing it.

Several glaring errors early on tried my patientce...I pressed on...ever waiting for it to pick up and spin into ANYTHING but the obvious killer.
Several points were just tooo daytime soap opera to be tolerated--- The "Red-Headed Cowgirl" disguise, among others; the elaborate set up in the basement, undetected by anyone of course; The Hansel & Grettle trail of "Please find me" clues, all pulled out of a small evening bag by the oh so savvy Lindsay.
The kicker of course was the wrap up at the end, with everyone so very predictably coupled up - living happily ever after and spending a cozy New Year's Eve together.
Blech.

Is there REALLY people out there that have read this book who DIDNT know who *the killer* was until the end?? even the most NOVICE reader could figure this one out, which completly ruined the suspense,very early on, I found myself very anxious to get through it as quickly as I possibly could, partly because the mystery ended almost before the story really began, & partly because the rest of the story was just plain hokey, silly, unrealistic, & BORING. I thought for sure this was going to be the best novel I ever read, being 2 of my favorite authors helped write it, boy, was I ever wrong, it is possibly one of the dumbest novels I have ever read, VERY un-entertaining. I am beyond shocked that these 3 usually fantastic authors could write something this low quality, this is definatly NOT up to their usual par, & my only hope now is that this never becomes a movie! if you are reading this, & are considering paying money for this book, I strongly advise you to wait until you can either borrow it, (I will send you mine), or skip it altogether, it really is a complete waste of time & money.

This book was nothing like I expected. Seeing the cover, I beleive that Hadden Clark was a cannibal, but after reading the book I didn't buy it one bit. After all the only part in the book that actually shows any cannibalism on Hadden's part was when he drank some blood and it was'nt even human. Don't get me wrong, he's still a sick son of a xxxxx and so was the rest of his family, except his sister, but if the author wanted to compare someone with Hannibal Lector it should of been Hadden Clark's Brother Brad. Personally I would have made the book about his brother.

This book is full of fiction and the writer needs to know where fiction stops and the real stories begin. I know that he needs to sell a book to make money but taking a man and making up things about his life is rediculous. He does not cite any of his sources everyone is ananamous the he supposedly tracked down. I write to Hadden and he has never once shown that he has multiple personalities he was diagnosed in the navy because they wanted him out for wearing womens clothing. His life is trajic and while its no excuse for the things he had done i feel like people should really go to the source instead of believing a person who seems like he is writing a novel not a biography.

Hadden Clark is a very sick man. The book was very detailed in explaining his pedigree history. He was not born inbred but rather in upscale Connecticut suburb of New York City. He probably had a lot more chances than most to accomplish something with his life. His crimes are unforgiving towards females in general. His family history and relationships seem to cover up any notion of his crimes. What made him this way? Well, that would be asking what made Charles Manson such a criminal. We know Charles Manson came from insanity and prisons while Hadden Clark's personal relationships are never really developed particularly with women. He reminds of Ed Gein who inspired Psycho. Whatever the cause of his crimes, Hadden Clark should never be released to the public.

By chance, I picked up a copy of this book recently. I was intrigued by the statement on the backcover which states that Hadden Clark used parts of his victims as fish bait. Being largely unfamiliar with his story, I thought I would enjoy the book.

The book is written well in the chronological order that best fits true crime. An epilogue details the events after the trial in which Clark reveals more vicitms. Because only two victims are discussed substantially in the book, it is a little short. Hadden Clark was only convicted of these two murders. The profile of Hadden Clark is what makes the book interesting. Hadden Clark has multiple personalities. One of these personalities is a woman which forces him to cross dress. Interestingly enough, the female personality is the one that knows the location of bodies. Thus, police had to escort a cross dressed man into the woods to locate bodies. This must have been quite a spectacle.

My biggest objection to this book is in the chapters in which the interrogations are discussed as it carries on too long. The author would have been best served to say that the investigators berated Clark, but all he would say is "I want my lawyer."

The book is titled "Born Evil", but I don't see Hadden Clark as being as Evil as many killers I have read about. The fact that he has multiple conflicting personalities makes him unique in the serial killer community not his evilness. However, the reader must keep in mind that his psychological problem is not an excuse for his crimes.

This is an interesting book for those just beginning to read true crime or a unique killer for veteran true crime readers to learn about. However, it is certainly not the scariest book.

I bought this book at my local bookstore after being intrigued at what I read on the back cover. I had never heard of Hadden Clark up until that point and was willing to learn about his crimes. I thought the book did a good job at supplying enough information. Yes, some of the scenes are gruesome, but it's a true crime book not a fairytale. I liked the fact that they went into Hadden Clark's past. This helped give me some more insight as to why he would commit these heinous crimes. I don't feel that this book was sympathetic towards Hadden Clark. I believe the author tried his best to be impartial. I feel deep sorrow for the victims families and Hadden Clark deserves to rot in jail for the rest of his life because he is a truly evil man. The book was able to portray how evil he was by giving some examples in various spots of the book. The only dissapointment was that the author didn't go into more detail about the other victims he killed. I thought there was some injustice there.

Not being a Ripper enthusiast, I had a very hard time plowing through this book. There's evidently a lot of good research behind it, but it's hidden beneath the taunting of the Diary doubters. The whole tone seems to be to whip up the folks who already agree with him. Folks who believe the Diary is a hoax won't be persuaded by this book, and people like me who have no prior knowledge of the controversy aren't likely to be convinced by Feldman's ranting.

This book is utterly frustrating to read. The author is stunningly untalented; the raw material he works with is fascinating, yet he manages to make it all seem banal, pedantic and trite, as well as incomprehensible. He totally lacks any type of story telling ability. For example, Feldman devotes PAGES and PAGES and PAGES to tracking down a confusingly-named line of illegimate descendents of his Ripper suspect, James Maybrick. He includes long details of interviews with these folks and even puts numerous photos of them in the photo section of the book. Yet, it turns out that these descendants of Maybrick have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH the real story, which is the finding of a controversial diary and a watch by yet ANOTHER line of Maybrick illegimate descendants. At another point, Feldman has assembled various legitimate and illegitimate descendants of Maybrick in the drawing room of the house where Maybrick died. Does he tell us the outcome of this Agatha Christie-style assemblage of characters? No, he mentions it in passing, then moves on to yet another section of mind-numbing geneological details. I don't recommend this book, but if you do buy it, skip the narrative (if it could be called that) and go straight to the "cast of characters" guide at the end. This is the most interesting and comprehensible portion of the entire book.

Feldman's hypothesis is convincing and well-written. Kudos to Feldman, a non-author and not a "Ripperologist" for being able to piece together all the pieces of this complex story. An all-around great book.

I first read Shirley Harrisons 'The Diary of Jack the Ripper' in 1993 and was completely intrigued. Here for the first time was something concrete 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. Then recently I read the 1998 updated version of the same book, which included new evidence and more information that had come to light during further investigations.

Then I bought and read this book by Paul Feldman. Its been the most expensive Ripper investigation to date. Many years, money and effort has gone into proving the provenance of the diary as well as the watch. And I say provenance because thats what the author is trying to prove ... the origins of the diary as well as the watch ... where it came from ... who had it and how it could possibly have been passed down the family tree. 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' was immediately and unequivocally disproved. And as I have read some of the reviews posted, many have not read the book properly, because if you had you would soon realise that Barrett does not possess the skill to have produced that document.

Although Paul Feldmans writing style is not the best around, this book makes it hard not to become a believer ... or at least someone who is willing to consider the possibility that the diary (and perhaps even the watch) is not a fake ... and that James Maybrick may well have been the Whitechapel killer.

Why people are so vehemently against the idea that 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. Perhaps its a matter of egos ... who knows?

This book, to me, was well worth the read. I was highly impressed with all aspects of the author and his teams investigations. I also appreciated the fact that questions raised by the diarys detractors were all answered in a concise and logical manner. This investigation was no cover up.

Well worth a read!

In order to save readers from spending money on this shoddily written novel (yes, novel, since it's completely fictional), I will repeat what I said about the forgery ("the diary") itself, since this book is essentially one expanded comment section of the original Maybrick hoax.

In 1992 a junk dealer from London, Michael Barrett, presented what would become known as "the Maybrick diary", attempting to ping the guilt of being Jack the Ripper on James Maybrick. The "diary" became a media event, and people interested in making money and gain of it have attempted to "prove" its "authenticity"; needless to say, they were unable to, for one simple reason - it is a crude forgery, which was in fact quickly and shoddily updated as new Ripper facts came to light (e.g. when it was revealed that Mary Kelly's heart was missing,
the forger was in process of creating the "diary" - and he quickly added an awkward note "No heart, no heart..." to the "Kelly section", but forgot to use the same ink to write it!)

It would take too much space to list literally hundreds of errors and inconsistencies in the "diary", as well as dozens of proofs for its inauthenticity. Instead, a good summary is simply the fact that on 5 January 1995, Barrett admitted to the forgery. To quote his sworn affidavit: "Since December 1993 I have been trying, through the press, the Publishers, the Author of the Book, Mrs Harrison, and my Agent Doreen Montgomery to expose the fraud of ' The Diary of Jack the Ripper ' ("the diary") (...) The facts of this matter are outlined as follows: I Michael Barrett was the author of the original diary of 'Jack the Ripper' and my wife, Anne Barrett, hand wrote it from my typed notes and on occasions at my dictation, the details of which I will explain in due course. The idea of the Diary came from discussion between Tony Devereux, Anne Barrett my wife and myself, there came I time when I believed such a hoax was a distinct possibility. We looked closely at the background of James Maybrick and I read everything to do with the Jack the Ripper matter. I felt Maybrick was an ideal candidate for Jack the Ripper. Most important of all, he could not defend himself. He was not 'Jack the Ripper' of that I am certain, but, times, places, visits to London and all that fitted. It was too easy. I told my wife Anne Barrett, I said, "Anne I'll write a best seller here, we can't fail". Once I realised we could do it. We had to find the necessary materials, paper, pens and ink. I gave this serious consideration. Roughly round about January, February 1990 Anne Barrett and I finally decided to go ahead and write the Diary of Jack the Ripper. In fact Anne purchased a Diary, a red leather backed Diary for L25.00p, she made the purchase through a firm in the 1986 Writters Year Book (...) Sworn at Liverpool in the County of Merseyside, this 5th day of January 1995"

Stay away from this crude forgery and don't support people who try to peddle it as "the real thing". The same kind of people would try to sell you "splinters from Christ's cross" in the Middle Ages...