What do you think?
Rate this book
Natural Born Killer: In Love and on the Road with a Serial Killer
When Sandy Fawkes met a tall, handsome American in a hotel bar in Atlanta, she could never have dreamed what lay in store. The man told her he was completing a 20,000-mile journey across America. As he was going her way, Sandy accepted his invitation of a lift and they quickly became lovers. What Paul John Knowles failed to tell her was that he had left a trail of bloody murder along his route, a trail which had yet to end. Natural Born Killers is the astonishing true story of one woman and an 18-time killer, how he charmed her, and how she nearly became his 19th victim. This is the intimate account of one of the most gruesome and terrible serial killers in history, told by the woman who survived his fearsome attentions.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1980
4 people are currently reading
293 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
December 23, 2020
This is a book of two halves; the first tells of when the author meets someone who she thinks is Daryl Golden while the second tells of when she discovers that Daryl Golden is actually Paul John Knowles a serial killer.
The first part sets the scene quite nicely and while the author doesn't know what Golden is (although the book title suggests it) the tale of their friendship is interspersed with a couple of snapshots of brutal killings that had taken place around the same time as they met. And, although Golden comes across as a perfect gentleman, the mention of crimes helps to build up the tension somewhat.
The second part, quite different from the first, is when Sandy Fawkes discovers that Golden is Knowles and a notorious serial killer. She realises how close she could have been to death, although there is no suggestion that Golden was ever going to take her life. As such the second part is acted out remotely because the two protagonists never meet up, until the court case (and then only very briefly) and as such it loses some of its authenticity and suspense.
I feel that my true crime spell is now over as this book does not inspire the reader greatly. Having said that, it is an okay read but not one of the most entertaining books I have ever read.
The first part sets the scene quite nicely and while the author doesn't know what Golden is (although the book title suggests it) the tale of their friendship is interspersed with a couple of snapshots of brutal killings that had taken place around the same time as they met. And, although Golden comes across as a perfect gentleman, the mention of crimes helps to build up the tension somewhat.
The second part, quite different from the first, is when Sandy Fawkes discovers that Golden is Knowles and a notorious serial killer. She realises how close she could have been to death, although there is no suggestion that Golden was ever going to take her life. As such the second part is acted out remotely because the two protagonists never meet up, until the court case (and then only very briefly) and as such it loses some of its authenticity and suspense.
I feel that my true crime spell is now over as this book does not inspire the reader greatly. Having said that, it is an okay read but not one of the most entertaining books I have ever read.
January 23, 2021
Absolute bollocks.
I nearly DNFed about 3 chapters in because I was so sick of the self obsessed author talking in disgustingly crass terms about her sex life; but I decided to continue by skipping and skim reading to try and find out something about the man's crimes.
Alas I still know nothing. Except this is the worst "true crime" book I've ever read. Absolute fiction, and more accurately, fantasy!
Do yourself a favour and avoid. Urgh.
I nearly DNFed about 3 chapters in because I was so sick of the self obsessed author talking in disgustingly crass terms about her sex life; but I decided to continue by skipping and skim reading to try and find out something about the man's crimes.
Alas I still know nothing. Except this is the worst "true crime" book I've ever read. Absolute fiction, and more accurately, fantasy!
Do yourself a favour and avoid. Urgh.
December 17, 2016
Published originally as "Killing Time," it was later released under the titles "Natural Born Killer," "In Love With A Serial Killer" and for all I know several others. This is probably one of a kind as true-crime stories go. It's the most intimate look at the daily life of a serial killer you're likely to get, including an assessment of how Paul John Knowles performed on the dance floor, and in the sack. It's as much about the author's life as it is about the killer's, but that never slows the story down for a minute, believe me.
March 13, 2023
The title is misleading in that the story is not about ‘being in love with a serial killer’ it is about a British journalist who picked up an American guy in a bar, slept with him and then spent a week with him as she let him drive her across America. Several times she tried to lose him as he made her feel uneasy, and when she finally did, she discovered a short while later that he was not who he said he was and was actually a serial killer, which lead to her being involved in bringing him to justice.
I quite enjoyed reading about how it all unfolded, it’s an ok read (rather than sensational) but also rather forgettable/somewhat underwhelming considering it is a book about a serial killer
I quite enjoyed reading about how it all unfolded, it’s an ok read (rather than sensational) but also rather forgettable/somewhat underwhelming considering it is a book about a serial killer
November 19, 2022
There are several versions of this book under different names. I read and own this exact edition. I personally love the cover and I prefer it over all the other covers of this book, whether it be hardcopy of this book or the multiple different titles.
Paul John Knowles is another relatively obscure case and a case I've known about for a long while but never really cared about or really looked into.
This book is a mix of well written and not well written. it's also hard to read at times due the english accent of the author who's writing reflects that. While it was at times slightly hard to read due to that I definitely appreciated the British approach and flare.
This is not really a book about Paul John Knowles but the author Sandy Fawkes. At the same time it has enough of Paul John Knowles.
Sandy Fawkes makes a fascinating and interesting character and women. Not a boring character. I appreciated her commentary on certain points. I will say this though....at times she did come off as slightly egotistical at times...not really in a negative way and the book makes her sound like an alcoholic.
I also appreciated her up frontness about certain topics including sex and her 1920's attitude which I really appreciated about her. Lots of respect for her.
She reminded me of a song from a movie I watched during my 1920's remembrance month. Where I read two books about the 1920's and watched a marathon of 1920's movies. Some made in the 1920's and some that took place in the 1920's.
"They think is odd and "Sodom and Gomorrah"-ble!
But the fact is
Everything today is thoroughly modern
Check your personality
Everything today makes yesterday slow
Better face reality
It's not insanity
Says Vanity Fair
In fact, it's stylish to
Raise your skirts and bob your hair
You might also like
Have you seen the way they kiss in the movies
Isn't it delectable?
Painting lips and pencil lining your brows
Now is quite respectable
Good-bye, good goody girl
I'm changing and how
So beat the drums 'cause here comes
Thoroughly Modern Millie now
What we think is chic, unique and quite adorable
They think is odd and "Sodom and Gomorrah"-ble!
But the fact is
Everything today is thoroughly modern,"
"In a rumble seat, the world is so cozy
If the boy is kissable
And that tango dance they wouldn't allow
Now is quite permissible."
"Men say it's criminal what women'll do
What they're forgetting is
This is 1922!
Good-bye, good goody girl
I'm changing and how
So beat the drums 'cause here comes thoroughly
Hot off the press! One step ahead! Jazz age!
Whoopee baby! We're so thoroughly modern"
A women who went through all the relationships and typical life most people especially women went through especially during those times and in her 30's Sandy Fawkes lived more for her self then anyone else.
I liked her honesty.
Edit: After writing this and posting I did read some of the bad reviews judging Sandy.
She almost killed her self over a man. The love of her life. She had a daughter. She grew up in an orphanage....at 30 something f**king years old and a women in the 70's. Ya. Sandy was another victim of the Betty Friedman feminist movement. Just f**king who ever came by.
That's from the movie Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Where he says "1965. The great Francisco acid wing. Clearly I was a victim of the Drug Explosion. A natural street freak, just eating whatever came by." And for those who don't know who Betty Friedman is
"The phrase "feminine mystique" was coined by Friedan to describe the assumptions that women would be fulfilled from their housework, marriage, sexual lives, and children. The prevailing belief was that women who were truly feminine should not want to work, get an education, or have political opinions. Friedan wanted to prove that women were unsatisfied and could not voice their feelings"
To quote Quantum leap about the 50's
"Your too young to remember the 50's but let me tell you. The 50's were conformist, materialist, repressive, BORING, and stupid...and "On the road" rebelled against all of that and for a lot of us Kerouac started a whole new world. It was a world of adventure, spirituality, jazz and the coffee shops, and then rock and roll....and then free love."
So yes, clearly Sandy Fawkes was a victim of the 70's feminist movement. Just f**king what ever came by. She had ALREADY lived the life of a mother and a wife. She was in her 30's. It was HER TIME to get what she wanted out of life.
And just so you know....the 1920's was also a time of cultural and sexual revolution. Men could smoke cigerettes just like women. Men and women could have sex without getting married. They were treated equally. "You don't own me just because we had sex." After WW1 a segment of America especially the youth and army yets rejected the old VICTORIAN values. After a bloody and senseless war and a global pandemic that killed 40 million people a lot of Americans were like "Screw those Victorian values." Too bad the Great depression killed it.
End edit.
Sandy Fawkes was a female reporter from Britain traveling the U.S. on a try out for a U.S news organization. During this period and close to her going back home she met a serial killer by the name of Paul John Knowles and this book details her trip, her experiences with Knowles, and her commentary on the U.S. and U.S policies, etc.
We get a glimpse of 3 murders in the beginning but then it totally ignores the serial kller aspect and it focuses on Sandy and Paul.
The book had a lot more about the murders and Knowles's life story then I expected and I truly appreciated and loved the ending of this book where Sandy puts the Paul John Knowles case in perspective.
And I find my self asking again "Did this have to happen? Did those people have to die?"
So I really appreciated Sandy Fawkes's commentary on the case of Paul John Knowles. Which I had already thought given some of the evidence but Sandy Fawkes takes those observations about the case and expands on them and points it out. To quote her and she's absolutely correct
"It's hard not to make conclusions" about the Knowles case and what sparked it and how it could of been prevented.
The whole things reminds me of a docu-short about the 3 strikes law in California.
In the 90's a career criminal named Richard Alan Davis stalked, kidnapped, and then strangled to death a 12 year old girl named Polly Klaas. People were outraged, not just over the murder of this girl,but the fact that Davis had just been released from prison after his SECOND attempted kidnapping charge and the fact that he had a mile long rap sheet.
As one angry Californian put it "How could this maggot have slid through the system this long and this many times without somebody going 'wait a minute, pal!"
As as a law professor put it, because Americans were angry over the fact that despite putting a ton of people in prison the crime rate was still sky high.
"What was suppose to deliver people from their crime fears. What was suppose to reduce the homicide rate was the imprisonment cure and it HADN'T WORKED. So what happened during the 90's was the transition from 'Lock em up" to "throw away the key".
Of course Paul John Knowles didn't do serious crimes. In fact was institutionalized when he was 8 years old for stealing a bike. Very similar to another serial killer and repeat offender Carl Panzram.
So what did California do? Outraged and emotional from the Polly Klaas case they passed the 3 strikes law which FLOODED the prisons with non violent offenders and kept them in prison FOR LIFE. So you had homeless people who stole a piece of pizza, or a donut and now they are in prison for life.
Of course I can't help but think about the war on drugs which created a HUGE spike in violent crime. Created a war in the streets, and flooded our prisons with drug users, abusers, and addicts. Let alone the criminals they helped create in the first place.
Sandy Fawkes mentions Charles Manson. Another perfect example of this failure.
So let me quote Manson from an interview with Geraldo.
"I live in jail. Like a lot of kids. They get busted when they're 8-10 years old because they have no parents. Your jails are full of em. Aren't they full of em?"
" 'baby, won't you light my fire. Baby, won't you light my fire.' and then the kid grows up and what's he start doin? He starts lightin fires and they say 'NO GOOD KID, fire bug" and throw em into reform school....You can't put the issue ALL on Charlie and say 'It's all Charlie's fault.'
I mean let's talk about how...."Rehabilitative" those reform schools are. How "rehabilitative" those prisons are and let's talk about the family situation at home. Now I commend the prison for trying to get Knowles into a trade. I support that in the same way I support trade schools and such...of course problem with that is the fact that society again rejected Knowles. They refused to hire him...it's very easy to go back to your old ways when you tried and then failed and you feel like your trapped. Trapped by a society. At that point it's very easy to say "Screw it. They want me to continue my criminal ways, then I'm gonna be the criminal they want me to be. I tried to get out of that life and they spit in my face." You know....like, what's the POINT?!
My entire view is - save those who can be saved and lock up those who can't be.
I should also bring up zero tolerance policies in schools. Where children are suspended or expelled or even arrested for incredibly minor and trivial infractions like simply bringing "anything that can be used as a weapon" to school...which can mean LITERALLY ANYTHING. The entire POINT is to be vague and arbitrary. For draw a gun in school. For kicking a trash can. For talking during class, etc.
As an attorney general put it "If you are suspended or expelled you are much more likely to drop out. if you drop out you are much more likely to get involved in the criminal justice system. This has a huge impact on the lives of young people."
In a docu-short about the harm Zero tolerance policies have done and why it was created, etc they mention one case. The kid helped his mother poke a hole in a belt with one of those multi tools. You know the ones with the screw driver, small blade, nail file, corkscrew, etc. Well he put it in his pocket and at school it fell out....because of the STUPID F**KING Zero tolerance policy of "Anything that can be used as a weapon is a weapon" and "ignorance is not an excuse" the kid was not only expelled BUT ARRESTED.
After he was arrested he was sent to another school, but stopped going, ran away from home, and was later arrested for multiple thefts. As the kid now and adult put it
"I think I would of had a lot more opportunities if that one incident was handled a little bit different. For one thing I wouldn't of had a juvenile record."
As one of my favorite true crime experts put it. Talking about Panzram in Red Wing. A reform school back in the 1903.
"I think this is where he begins to create this idea that 'he's the worst of the worst. Nobody better mess with him.'"
So I really liked the ending chapter. I liked Sandy Fawkes and I do feel like I learned about who Knowles was and I find it very revealing and interesting that Knowles attacked a friend's wive of Sandy's right after Sandy parted ways. I think Knowles was so rejected by her that he tried to take it out on this acquaintance.
Edit: After writing this review and finishing the book I discovered a little more details about Knowles. Turns out the "reform school" Knowles went to is the infamous Dozier reform school for boys. I actually remember a few years ago watching some videos about the Dozier school.
The Dozier school for boys was basically Carl Panzram's Red wing.
Carl Panzram said about Red wing "I had learned more about lying, stealing, hating, burning, and killing from the treatment I received while there and the lessons I learned from it."
They found 27 graves at Dozier. All students who had been brutally murdered by the staff.
Wikipedia - "Throughout its 111-year history, the school gained a reputation for abuse, beatings, rapes, torture, and even murder of students by staff. Despite periodic investigations, changes of leadership, and promises to improve, the allegations of cruelty and abuse continued."
Former students who fortunately WERE NOT BRUTALLY MURDERED by this "rehabilitative" staff talk about being whipped with belts with METAL, literal pieces of metal stuck in the strap.
Wikipedia - "there was a "rape room" at the school, where boys were sexually abused by guards. The complainants said some of the victims were as young as nine years old."
At Dozier they had the "White house" A small cabin painted white. At Red wing they had "The paint shop" The white house obviously got it's name due to the color. The "Paint shop" got the name because as Panzram put it it was where ""they used to paint our bodies black and blue."
"OH BUT YOUR HUMANIZING PANZRAM AND KNOWLES! WE SHOULDN'T EVEN LISTEN TO THEM!!! WHAT ABOUT THE VICTIMS?! THE VICTIMS?! THE POOR POOR VICTIMS?!"
GET A F**KING GRIP!!!!!
Knowles's brother has also been interviewed about their childhoods and he said even before his brother Paul was sent to Dozier their father was beating them. Neglecting them.
So Knowles was being beaten by his father and neglected. Then he's sent off to a "reform" school where he is beaten with belts studded with metal shards. He was probably raped too. Oh but "outraged" idiots on the internet don't want to hear that because that is "humanizing a serial killer." Ya, your f**king idiots. i said it.
So ya. Sandy Fawkes was completely right. More right then she thought she was.
To again quote Charles Manson "I live in jail. Like a lot of kids. They get busted when they're 8-10 years old because they have no parents. Your jails are full of em."
"He starts lightin fires and they say 'NO GOOD KID, fire bug" and throw em into reform school....You can't put the issue ALL on Charlie and say 'It's all Charlie's fault.'"
WHAT ABOUT SOCIETY'S F**KING FAULT?!
End edit:
The Beatles song "Yesterday" is mentioned in the book. It's always been one of my favorite songs and I think it's totally appropriate for this book. If this was made into a movie I would suggest it would be the perfect song for the end credits.
"Yesterday
All my troubles seemed so far away
Now it looks as though they're here to stay
Oh, I believe in yesterday
Suddenly
I'm not half the man I used to be
There's a shadow hanging over me
Oh, yesterday came suddenly
Why she had to go? I don't know, she wouldn't say
I said something wrong, now I long for yesterday
Yesterday
Love was such an easy game to play
Now I need a place to hide away
Oh, I believe in yesterday."
Love was such an easy game to play...but everything must come to an end eventually and I think the word "Play" is pretty accurate in the description of what happened between Sandy and Paul. Not just them in terms of a relationship but Knowles as a person and especially in terms of his crimes. Knowles was like a pathetic vampire playing in the shoes and clothes of a mortal out in the normal world. He used their bodies, their property, and their clothes to attain what he coveted.
I also like how Sandy talked about how appreciative she was of still being alive and the Christmas season.
Over all...book has some problems, but really good. It has a few photos of some of the victims. A photo of the man who caught Knowles. Has a photo of the lawyer's wife, a photo of Sandy, photos of the main detective, and of course of Knowles. It gives a good look into Knowles. Sandy her self is interesting. Sandy's observations are interesting and nice. The murders are listed and the basic facts are given. Just over all a good book.
But still not enough to give it a 4 or a 5. But close.
My last book I read a day before reading this The Olson murders was also almost a 4 despite some problems. I said it didn't really pique my interest as much as I was piqued by a book about Ian Brady and Myra Hindley. Which is true...not that extent but i am still fairly interested in going beyond an introduction and learning more. Same with Knowles.
Paul John Knowles is another relatively obscure case and a case I've known about for a long while but never really cared about or really looked into.
This book is a mix of well written and not well written. it's also hard to read at times due the english accent of the author who's writing reflects that. While it was at times slightly hard to read due to that I definitely appreciated the British approach and flare.
This is not really a book about Paul John Knowles but the author Sandy Fawkes. At the same time it has enough of Paul John Knowles.
Sandy Fawkes makes a fascinating and interesting character and women. Not a boring character. I appreciated her commentary on certain points. I will say this though....at times she did come off as slightly egotistical at times...not really in a negative way and the book makes her sound like an alcoholic.
I also appreciated her up frontness about certain topics including sex and her 1920's attitude which I really appreciated about her. Lots of respect for her.
She reminded me of a song from a movie I watched during my 1920's remembrance month. Where I read two books about the 1920's and watched a marathon of 1920's movies. Some made in the 1920's and some that took place in the 1920's.
"They think is odd and "Sodom and Gomorrah"-ble!
But the fact is
Everything today is thoroughly modern
Check your personality
Everything today makes yesterday slow
Better face reality
It's not insanity
Says Vanity Fair
In fact, it's stylish to
Raise your skirts and bob your hair
You might also like
Have you seen the way they kiss in the movies
Isn't it delectable?
Painting lips and pencil lining your brows
Now is quite respectable
Good-bye, good goody girl
I'm changing and how
So beat the drums 'cause here comes
Thoroughly Modern Millie now
What we think is chic, unique and quite adorable
They think is odd and "Sodom and Gomorrah"-ble!
But the fact is
Everything today is thoroughly modern,"
"In a rumble seat, the world is so cozy
If the boy is kissable
And that tango dance they wouldn't allow
Now is quite permissible."
"Men say it's criminal what women'll do
What they're forgetting is
This is 1922!
Good-bye, good goody girl
I'm changing and how
So beat the drums 'cause here comes thoroughly
Hot off the press! One step ahead! Jazz age!
Whoopee baby! We're so thoroughly modern"
A women who went through all the relationships and typical life most people especially women went through especially during those times and in her 30's Sandy Fawkes lived more for her self then anyone else.
I liked her honesty.
Edit: After writing this and posting I did read some of the bad reviews judging Sandy.
She almost killed her self over a man. The love of her life. She had a daughter. She grew up in an orphanage....at 30 something f**king years old and a women in the 70's. Ya. Sandy was another victim of the Betty Friedman feminist movement. Just f**king who ever came by.
That's from the movie Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Where he says "1965. The great Francisco acid wing. Clearly I was a victim of the Drug Explosion. A natural street freak, just eating whatever came by." And for those who don't know who Betty Friedman is
"The phrase "feminine mystique" was coined by Friedan to describe the assumptions that women would be fulfilled from their housework, marriage, sexual lives, and children. The prevailing belief was that women who were truly feminine should not want to work, get an education, or have political opinions. Friedan wanted to prove that women were unsatisfied and could not voice their feelings"
To quote Quantum leap about the 50's
"Your too young to remember the 50's but let me tell you. The 50's were conformist, materialist, repressive, BORING, and stupid...and "On the road" rebelled against all of that and for a lot of us Kerouac started a whole new world. It was a world of adventure, spirituality, jazz and the coffee shops, and then rock and roll....and then free love."
So yes, clearly Sandy Fawkes was a victim of the 70's feminist movement. Just f**king what ever came by. She had ALREADY lived the life of a mother and a wife. She was in her 30's. It was HER TIME to get what she wanted out of life.
And just so you know....the 1920's was also a time of cultural and sexual revolution. Men could smoke cigerettes just like women. Men and women could have sex without getting married. They were treated equally. "You don't own me just because we had sex." After WW1 a segment of America especially the youth and army yets rejected the old VICTORIAN values. After a bloody and senseless war and a global pandemic that killed 40 million people a lot of Americans were like "Screw those Victorian values." Too bad the Great depression killed it.
End edit.
Sandy Fawkes was a female reporter from Britain traveling the U.S. on a try out for a U.S news organization. During this period and close to her going back home she met a serial killer by the name of Paul John Knowles and this book details her trip, her experiences with Knowles, and her commentary on the U.S. and U.S policies, etc.
We get a glimpse of 3 murders in the beginning but then it totally ignores the serial kller aspect and it focuses on Sandy and Paul.
The book had a lot more about the murders and Knowles's life story then I expected and I truly appreciated and loved the ending of this book where Sandy puts the Paul John Knowles case in perspective.
And I find my self asking again "Did this have to happen? Did those people have to die?"
So I really appreciated Sandy Fawkes's commentary on the case of Paul John Knowles. Which I had already thought given some of the evidence but Sandy Fawkes takes those observations about the case and expands on them and points it out. To quote her and she's absolutely correct
"It's hard not to make conclusions" about the Knowles case and what sparked it and how it could of been prevented.
The whole things reminds me of a docu-short about the 3 strikes law in California.
In the 90's a career criminal named Richard Alan Davis stalked, kidnapped, and then strangled to death a 12 year old girl named Polly Klaas. People were outraged, not just over the murder of this girl,but the fact that Davis had just been released from prison after his SECOND attempted kidnapping charge and the fact that he had a mile long rap sheet.
As one angry Californian put it "How could this maggot have slid through the system this long and this many times without somebody going 'wait a minute, pal!"
As as a law professor put it, because Americans were angry over the fact that despite putting a ton of people in prison the crime rate was still sky high.
"What was suppose to deliver people from their crime fears. What was suppose to reduce the homicide rate was the imprisonment cure and it HADN'T WORKED. So what happened during the 90's was the transition from 'Lock em up" to "throw away the key".
Of course Paul John Knowles didn't do serious crimes. In fact was institutionalized when he was 8 years old for stealing a bike. Very similar to another serial killer and repeat offender Carl Panzram.
So what did California do? Outraged and emotional from the Polly Klaas case they passed the 3 strikes law which FLOODED the prisons with non violent offenders and kept them in prison FOR LIFE. So you had homeless people who stole a piece of pizza, or a donut and now they are in prison for life.
Of course I can't help but think about the war on drugs which created a HUGE spike in violent crime. Created a war in the streets, and flooded our prisons with drug users, abusers, and addicts. Let alone the criminals they helped create in the first place.
Sandy Fawkes mentions Charles Manson. Another perfect example of this failure.
So let me quote Manson from an interview with Geraldo.
"I live in jail. Like a lot of kids. They get busted when they're 8-10 years old because they have no parents. Your jails are full of em. Aren't they full of em?"
" 'baby, won't you light my fire. Baby, won't you light my fire.' and then the kid grows up and what's he start doin? He starts lightin fires and they say 'NO GOOD KID, fire bug" and throw em into reform school....You can't put the issue ALL on Charlie and say 'It's all Charlie's fault.'
I mean let's talk about how...."Rehabilitative" those reform schools are. How "rehabilitative" those prisons are and let's talk about the family situation at home. Now I commend the prison for trying to get Knowles into a trade. I support that in the same way I support trade schools and such...of course problem with that is the fact that society again rejected Knowles. They refused to hire him...it's very easy to go back to your old ways when you tried and then failed and you feel like your trapped. Trapped by a society. At that point it's very easy to say "Screw it. They want me to continue my criminal ways, then I'm gonna be the criminal they want me to be. I tried to get out of that life and they spit in my face." You know....like, what's the POINT?!
My entire view is - save those who can be saved and lock up those who can't be.
I should also bring up zero tolerance policies in schools. Where children are suspended or expelled or even arrested for incredibly minor and trivial infractions like simply bringing "anything that can be used as a weapon" to school...which can mean LITERALLY ANYTHING. The entire POINT is to be vague and arbitrary. For draw a gun in school. For kicking a trash can. For talking during class, etc.
As an attorney general put it "If you are suspended or expelled you are much more likely to drop out. if you drop out you are much more likely to get involved in the criminal justice system. This has a huge impact on the lives of young people."
In a docu-short about the harm Zero tolerance policies have done and why it was created, etc they mention one case. The kid helped his mother poke a hole in a belt with one of those multi tools. You know the ones with the screw driver, small blade, nail file, corkscrew, etc. Well he put it in his pocket and at school it fell out....because of the STUPID F**KING Zero tolerance policy of "Anything that can be used as a weapon is a weapon" and "ignorance is not an excuse" the kid was not only expelled BUT ARRESTED.
After he was arrested he was sent to another school, but stopped going, ran away from home, and was later arrested for multiple thefts. As the kid now and adult put it
"I think I would of had a lot more opportunities if that one incident was handled a little bit different. For one thing I wouldn't of had a juvenile record."
As one of my favorite true crime experts put it. Talking about Panzram in Red Wing. A reform school back in the 1903.
"I think this is where he begins to create this idea that 'he's the worst of the worst. Nobody better mess with him.'"
So I really liked the ending chapter. I liked Sandy Fawkes and I do feel like I learned about who Knowles was and I find it very revealing and interesting that Knowles attacked a friend's wive of Sandy's right after Sandy parted ways. I think Knowles was so rejected by her that he tried to take it out on this acquaintance.
Edit: After writing this review and finishing the book I discovered a little more details about Knowles. Turns out the "reform school" Knowles went to is the infamous Dozier reform school for boys. I actually remember a few years ago watching some videos about the Dozier school.
The Dozier school for boys was basically Carl Panzram's Red wing.
Carl Panzram said about Red wing "I had learned more about lying, stealing, hating, burning, and killing from the treatment I received while there and the lessons I learned from it."
They found 27 graves at Dozier. All students who had been brutally murdered by the staff.
Wikipedia - "Throughout its 111-year history, the school gained a reputation for abuse, beatings, rapes, torture, and even murder of students by staff. Despite periodic investigations, changes of leadership, and promises to improve, the allegations of cruelty and abuse continued."
Former students who fortunately WERE NOT BRUTALLY MURDERED by this "rehabilitative" staff talk about being whipped with belts with METAL, literal pieces of metal stuck in the strap.
Wikipedia - "there was a "rape room" at the school, where boys were sexually abused by guards. The complainants said some of the victims were as young as nine years old."
At Dozier they had the "White house" A small cabin painted white. At Red wing they had "The paint shop" The white house obviously got it's name due to the color. The "Paint shop" got the name because as Panzram put it it was where ""they used to paint our bodies black and blue."
"OH BUT YOUR HUMANIZING PANZRAM AND KNOWLES! WE SHOULDN'T EVEN LISTEN TO THEM!!! WHAT ABOUT THE VICTIMS?! THE VICTIMS?! THE POOR POOR VICTIMS?!"
GET A F**KING GRIP!!!!!
Knowles's brother has also been interviewed about their childhoods and he said even before his brother Paul was sent to Dozier their father was beating them. Neglecting them.
So Knowles was being beaten by his father and neglected. Then he's sent off to a "reform" school where he is beaten with belts studded with metal shards. He was probably raped too. Oh but "outraged" idiots on the internet don't want to hear that because that is "humanizing a serial killer." Ya, your f**king idiots. i said it.
So ya. Sandy Fawkes was completely right. More right then she thought she was.
To again quote Charles Manson "I live in jail. Like a lot of kids. They get busted when they're 8-10 years old because they have no parents. Your jails are full of em."
"He starts lightin fires and they say 'NO GOOD KID, fire bug" and throw em into reform school....You can't put the issue ALL on Charlie and say 'It's all Charlie's fault.'"
WHAT ABOUT SOCIETY'S F**KING FAULT?!
End edit:
The Beatles song "Yesterday" is mentioned in the book. It's always been one of my favorite songs and I think it's totally appropriate for this book. If this was made into a movie I would suggest it would be the perfect song for the end credits.
"Yesterday
All my troubles seemed so far away
Now it looks as though they're here to stay
Oh, I believe in yesterday
Suddenly
I'm not half the man I used to be
There's a shadow hanging over me
Oh, yesterday came suddenly
Why she had to go? I don't know, she wouldn't say
I said something wrong, now I long for yesterday
Yesterday
Love was such an easy game to play
Now I need a place to hide away
Oh, I believe in yesterday."
Love was such an easy game to play...but everything must come to an end eventually and I think the word "Play" is pretty accurate in the description of what happened between Sandy and Paul. Not just them in terms of a relationship but Knowles as a person and especially in terms of his crimes. Knowles was like a pathetic vampire playing in the shoes and clothes of a mortal out in the normal world. He used their bodies, their property, and their clothes to attain what he coveted.
I also like how Sandy talked about how appreciative she was of still being alive and the Christmas season.
Over all...book has some problems, but really good. It has a few photos of some of the victims. A photo of the man who caught Knowles. Has a photo of the lawyer's wife, a photo of Sandy, photos of the main detective, and of course of Knowles. It gives a good look into Knowles. Sandy her self is interesting. Sandy's observations are interesting and nice. The murders are listed and the basic facts are given. Just over all a good book.
But still not enough to give it a 4 or a 5. But close.
My last book I read a day before reading this The Olson murders was also almost a 4 despite some problems. I said it didn't really pique my interest as much as I was piqued by a book about Ian Brady and Myra Hindley. Which is true...not that extent but i am still fairly interested in going beyond an introduction and learning more. Same with Knowles.
December 17, 2020
There is so much wrong with this author's "factual account"
Where to begin? The title - complete click bait. "I was so in love..." with herself. The title is merely to grab attention and sell books, there is no truth in her loving him. Here are the things that make this book so wrong and at best a fictionalized account of a situation that happened 40 years ago, viewed through the rose-colored glasses of an arrogant, yet incredibly insecure woman: 1. She *hates* Americans, and everything about America. 2. She's incredibly class conscious. 3. She finds only herself, her lust, and her desire for young men [close enough in age to date her adult daughter] of any interest or value, *unless* the man has money, sex appeal, and a willingness to satiate her never-ending libido. She mentions her sex drive so often you'd think she was a teenage boy. 4. She used him more than he used her. She had no real interest in him until he told her the story of the tapes - she was a basic, National Enquirer "reporter" looking to make a name for herself. Her only believable complaints are of the police hating her, his sexual prowess not living up to her expectations, and her hatred of Jackie (the other woman in his life). Reading her "intuitions", her " fears", her closeness with the DA and GBI reeks of fantasy and expectations. I suspect his book was an attempt to make herself look better to the public at large. Her feelings towards her children seems to be because they were "expected". Her wanting to come back and testify. Her sadness at his death. All read like fantasy, rather than non-fiction. In short, this woman is only slightly better than the serial killer. He wanted fame and notoriety and he killed to get it. She sensationalized horrific crimes, while downplaying her own stupidity and neediness to make herself a name as a " respected" author and journalist.
Where to begin? The title - complete click bait. "I was so in love..." with herself. The title is merely to grab attention and sell books, there is no truth in her loving him. Here are the things that make this book so wrong and at best a fictionalized account of a situation that happened 40 years ago, viewed through the rose-colored glasses of an arrogant, yet incredibly insecure woman: 1. She *hates* Americans, and everything about America. 2. She's incredibly class conscious. 3. She finds only herself, her lust, and her desire for young men [close enough in age to date her adult daughter] of any interest or value, *unless* the man has money, sex appeal, and a willingness to satiate her never-ending libido. She mentions her sex drive so often you'd think she was a teenage boy. 4. She used him more than he used her. She had no real interest in him until he told her the story of the tapes - she was a basic, National Enquirer "reporter" looking to make a name for herself. Her only believable complaints are of the police hating her, his sexual prowess not living up to her expectations, and her hatred of Jackie (the other woman in his life). Reading her "intuitions", her " fears", her closeness with the DA and GBI reeks of fantasy and expectations. I suspect his book was an attempt to make herself look better to the public at large. Her feelings towards her children seems to be because they were "expected". Her wanting to come back and testify. Her sadness at his death. All read like fantasy, rather than non-fiction. In short, this woman is only slightly better than the serial killer. He wanted fame and notoriety and he killed to get it. She sensationalized horrific crimes, while downplaying her own stupidity and neediness to make herself a name as a " respected" author and journalist.
February 10, 2010
A slightly misleading by-line - at no point is Fawkes ever in love, that much is extremely clear - but an interesting book nonetheless.
It's 1974 and Sandy Fawkes, a British journalist, is in America chasing down interviews. Approached by a handsome young man in a bar, she soon falls into bed with him (with disappointing results) and agrees to have him drive her to her next assignment, an arrangement that ends up with Fawkes not quite managing to shake him off for the rest of the week. Shortly after managing to say goodbye she is contacted by the police, as her companion for the journey is a wanted killer...
Taking in her journey across America with Paul John Knowles (known to Sandy as Daryl Golden) and the days following, leading up to Knowles' arrest and brief incarceration, at times Fawkes' account of her journey has definitely been coloured with the benefit of hindsight, and Fawkes herself isn't without flaws (her attitude once she realises what a big story she's caught inside of I felt was a little mercenary), but she is also honest enough not to try and paint a nicer picture of herself. Having been in a very unique position, Fawkes is able to give us a closer glimpse of the man than would have been gained by any working in law enforcement, complete with some extremely chilling details (noticing the odd assortment of things in the trunk of his car, and the watch he gives her as a present to name a couple).
The afterword presents us with the authors attitude to her work and to Knowles with the benefit of even more years between them and it's interesting to see how her attitude has changed, in particular towards Knowles.
An interesting addition to my true crime library.
It's 1974 and Sandy Fawkes, a British journalist, is in America chasing down interviews. Approached by a handsome young man in a bar, she soon falls into bed with him (with disappointing results) and agrees to have him drive her to her next assignment, an arrangement that ends up with Fawkes not quite managing to shake him off for the rest of the week. Shortly after managing to say goodbye she is contacted by the police, as her companion for the journey is a wanted killer...
Taking in her journey across America with Paul John Knowles (known to Sandy as Daryl Golden) and the days following, leading up to Knowles' arrest and brief incarceration, at times Fawkes' account of her journey has definitely been coloured with the benefit of hindsight, and Fawkes herself isn't without flaws (her attitude once she realises what a big story she's caught inside of I felt was a little mercenary), but she is also honest enough not to try and paint a nicer picture of herself. Having been in a very unique position, Fawkes is able to give us a closer glimpse of the man than would have been gained by any working in law enforcement, complete with some extremely chilling details (noticing the odd assortment of things in the trunk of his car, and the watch he gives her as a present to name a couple).
The afterword presents us with the authors attitude to her work and to Knowles with the benefit of even more years between them and it's interesting to see how her attitude has changed, in particular towards Knowles.
An interesting addition to my true crime library.
April 30, 2017
This was one of those "finish in one sitting" books because it was relatively short and straightforward. Although this style of true crime is one of my favourite genres I couldn't help but intensely dislike the protagonist and author Sandy. What a shallow creature who - even after all she discovers about this man - believes he should Rest In Peace.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 9, 2016
An amazingly true story - this woman actually meets up with a man at a bar and spends a week travelling with him, only to find out afterwards that he's a serial killer !!
February 5, 2018
Far from the gripping and intriguing true crime story I was hoping for. Passionless, emotionless and all round dull! Felt more like a woman trying to stretch and use a situation for all the money it was worth. Take a look at my full review here: https://booksfilmstheatreandliferevie...
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews