This old true crime book started out quite interesting. A mother murdered, her two children missing. All fingers point towards her lover, an off/on again relationship the victim had left her husband for.
In the book, it touches upon the perps relationships with women, who seem to become deranged with love for him. The murder victim broke up her family, threw herself on the floor at work sobbing, wrote endless explicit and increasingly desperate love letters, all to no avail. He was no longer interested, the rejection driving her to desperation.
However, upon her coming into inheritance, he is back in her life with hearty talks about their future and investing her money. Not long after, he is named beneficiary of her will. I feel sorry for the children who were innocent victims to a scheming manipulator and in all honesty, their mother’s naivety. But I’m sure that’s easy to say in hindsight. I frustratingly never got a feel for the motivation and decision making of Susan Reinert, although I understand she was clearly manipulated by Bradfield and her death was a tragedy.
The author talks of being granted visitation to the perp while incarcerated, in order to write the book. What a honour bestowed upon her, a female author, by such a kindly and generous man. An attempt to control the narrative perhaps? He maintains his innocence and befriends the author as he so enjoys their visits and it would be upsetting for him to see her no longer, when she has finished the book, considering he now views her as a friend.
The author frets about how best to write the book. Should she remain neutral, or sway one side or another. She decides upon letting the different voices in the story each say their own piece, a cop out? It’s a format that doesn’t work, with pages of rambling from the two accused (the other being a weird colleague). I thought this could have been interesting as there was an element of this in Fatal Vision, one of my favourite true crime reads, and the psychological insight proved fascinating. However, I think the rest of the text needed to be presented exceptionally well to balance it out. It wasn’t and, as a result, it often felt muddled and confusing to follow.