Any serious professional in this field will look at his topic of expertise with a certain scientific detachment. Where readers stop taking a "world-renowned investigative criminologist" seriously, therefore, is when he refers to his subjects as "monsters", "demoniacal", and "The Antichrist" (I kid you not) on every other page. A quality author will lay out the facts for the reader in the most matter-of-fact style he can muster, and leave the dignity to the reader to draw his or her own conclusions.
This one, however, sounds less like a studied professional of sound scientific background and much more like a stranded The Sun reporter trying to scrape the barrel of moral highground (or for my fellow Germans: Bild comes fairly close, and for Americans that would probably be Fox News)
If you want to read an actual account from an author who is trying to trace what's gone wrong in killers and how we can work to limit these occurrences in the future, I warmly recommend "Listening To Killers - Lessons Learned from my 20 Years as Psychological Expert Witness in Murder Cases" by James Garbarino. Back to my rant:
What especially rubs me the wrong way is his holier-than-thou treatment of victims and survivors from his High Horse of Hindsight. Here a couple of gems I've been unlucky enough to lay my eyes upon:
- "Alice Johnson, a somewhat dim-witted, plain woman in her 30s fell for him, and this naive and gullible cleaning woman with few friends thought she'd met a hard-working, decent man." - Yes Christopher, because I'm sure you've never been wrong about a person in your entire life, and surely everybody was on the receiving end of well-intentioned upbringing and education to shield them from predators and con-artists. Definitely. If he is as much of an expert when it comes to serial killers and psychopaths as he claims he is, he would surely be the first one to remind us of how cunning and manipulative these individuals can be, and about how they can sometimes portray the loving husband and father for decades, and credibly so, before their mask slips. But apparently, this victim didn't deserve that little reminder.
- when elaborating on how many prostitutes one of them had killed: "[...] the obvious fact that he had also raped and killed [...] two quite decent women [...]" Great, yet another man who follows the good old dichotomy of prostitutes = bad, "decent" women (whatever that's supposed to mean) = good. I am so sick of educated people, especially the ones from Europe, who don't realize how easy it is to slip into homelessness - and all the accompanying concomitants like drug habits and prostitution - in the US if you happen to be an unlucky kid in their teens kicked out by their parents with no social network to fall back on, to name just one of some very realistic scenarios. But yes Christopher, surely nobody sleeping rough or stuck in a bad situation can possibly be "decent" deep down.
The whole book reeks of unacknowledged priviledge of this kind and I'm not the first one to suspect that it's all just one big occasion to stroke his ego to the high heavens and back.
- "for he's the wolf in sheep's clothing, part human, part Anti-Christ"- No Christopher, we are talking about a deranged individual damaged beyond repair, and if you were really interested in helping society deal with them, you'd stop dehumanizing them and make people aware of how everybody, and that's their neighbours, teachers, fathers and sons (and occasionally daughters) can potentially pose a threat and what best we can do to prevent future outbreaks of violence early on. But yes let's continue casting them as the spawn of satan to keep readers engaged. Or is the author perhaps trying to create maximum distance between him and the cruel actions of these killers, so as not to be associated? I can't tell, but I wish it hadn't taken a toll on his writing style the way it did.
A great pity, as the book is very well-researched, albeit full of grammatical errors (and I'm not even a native so I definitely shouldn't be able to spot your errors), and if it wasn't for the sensational clamouring for outrage and shock-effect it would be an interesting read, but as it stands, this book won't be for you if you like serious literature/journalism.