Just. Not. Good. Very flat. It started out like a lot of True Crime stories do...at the point of capture. I was waiting for the author to go back and develop the character of the murderer, what was his childhood like, where did he come from, who was he, but there was only about a paragraph about that:
"He had a happy childhood". No conjecture as to why he did it. No psychological theories of how someone with his background could become the monster he did. Then I was expecting some development of the victims but only got very little information (again a couple paragraphs) about just one of the victims, the final one. From there it quickly went right into the trial and the aftermath and never really discussed the other victims other than their names and how they were murdered. A lot of it was just reprinted transcripts from the trial and news paper reports, so the writer didn't really do much of the work. Pretty much a disappointment and honestly a disservice to the families of the victims. This author had the opportunity to tell their stories and didn't. This might have just been a long news paper story for what it contained. Just the facts ma'am, just the facts. ( )