I picked up this book for a short read on a subject that interests me -- and in that regard, the book fulfilled the objective. However, if you are hoping for quality investigative journalism, you will be profoundly disappointed -- the sicario's personal story does not ring true and has all of the hallmarks of an imposter.
By saying that I do not believe his story, I am not saying that I don't believe in the real-life kidnappings that undoubtedly occur many times daily, the brutal executions carried out by drug-addled assassins aided by local police, the untold number of unmarked graves throughout Mexico, or even the massive corruption that infects every level of Mexican government allowing narco-terrorism to flourish. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of this nightmare-fuel which any person who follows the news could fail to notice. No, the story of the "sicario" has all the trappings of someone who DID follow this saga closely, and may have even lived amid the hot, flying lead.
But there's nothing in the uninterrupted, rambling, sometimes-repetitive narrative of the "sicario" that jumps out as something only a contract-killer would or could know. The editors' whole premise of letting the subject speak incessantly for hours on-end is completely antithetical to the idea of in-depth reporting. Probing questions should have been asked before he moved on to a different subject; the "sicario" should have been pressed for more details on specific events, places and times. Are the crude drawings peppered throughout the book supposed to lend credence to his tale? Are they supposed to even be informative or illuminating? If this guy really was some kind of super-killer in charge of planning kidnappings and executions, his team members must've been mind readers because his diagramming skills are complete garbage.
If his story is to be believed, the reader should be provided with the details which make the story believable. It is not enough to take the editors' word for it -- which is explicitly what Bowden asks us to do. The best assurance offered to the reader that the "sicario" is authentic is essentially: a guy that I can vouch for knows a guy who can vouch for another guy that can vouch for this guy. Okey-dokey.
While the absence of verifiable details and the melodramatic assassin-turned-weeping-Christian tale had me skeptical, there was one anecdote that pushed me over the edge. In his escape from his life as a hired killer, he reaches out to a man that was once (and presumably still is) an assassination target of a drug cartel due to his owing them $1.5M. The "sicario" tells us that he was once ordered to execute this man, but was never able to track him down even after making multiple attempts. But during his divinely-guided escape, he opens the phone book, calls the man's office, tells him he's coming to meet him, and then strolls right into his office to meet him face-to-face. Hmmm. What are we to make of this? Obviously, if cartel assassins just knew how to use the yellow pages they could stop futzing about about with elaborate surveillance and kidnapping plans and just ring targets up by pretending to sell them the premium and sports cable package.
But why would someone pretend to be someone they're not? The editors assure us that he is not seeking fame -- after all, he veils himself on camera and there are people that would kill him if they could find him. Sometimes all an impostor wants is to feel like the center of attention, tell people a story, and have them hang on their every word. Oh, and one last thing: "He was paid for these interviews."